The Church Battles Reforms in Spain’s Abortion Law


A draft of Spain’s reformed
abortion bill has ignited the Catholic Church, which called its congregation as
well as the Catholic politicians to vote against the bill even though it has
not yet been submitted to Congress.

The bill reflects the recommendations
of the Spanish parliamentary commission, which for six months examined the
effect of Spain’s
restrictive abortion laws. Last February,
the parliamentary commission proposed a reform decriminalizing abortion in Spain
so abortion would be removed from the Penal Code and included under the sexual
health regulations.

The report, along with one
issued by the expert panel of doctors, lawyers, academics and government
representatives appointed by the Spanish government in September 2008, is at
the base of the draft abortion reform bill to be introduced in the legislature
this year.

The proposed reform authorizes
free abortion between the 14th and 22nd week of pregnancy
if a medical certification states risks for the mother or the baby. Moreover, it
would allow16-year-old girls to have an abortion without consent of their
parents. In addition, it states that providers’ conscience objections cannot
become an obstacle for women’s access to the medical proceeding in the public
health system. 

Since 1985, abortion has
been legal in Spain
only in instances of rape, severe fetal abnormalities or if the mother’s mental
or physical health is at risk. However, Spanish women have to struggle to get a
medical certification or a police report (in case of rape) in order to access a
legal abortion, which is why women prefer to travel to London if they can afford it to end their
unwanted pregnancies. Those who get the required document for legal abortion
often have to pay a private clinic because doctors in the state health service
refuse. In fact, the public system performs only 3 percent of the 112,000
abortions performed in Spain
each year. 

This situation seemed
discriminatory by the defenders of the voluntary termination of pregnancy, and
inequitable for the Socialist Party.

The proposed bill is in line with other sexual and
reproductive reforms carried out by Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero
such as the free sale of the emergency contraception pill in pharmacies without
prescription.

The question now is does the
Catholic Church have the influence required to stop the abortion reform?

One can realize that Spain is no
longer the bastion of the Catholic Church if we take into account other reforms
promoted and approved by Zapatero’s Socialist government such as the full
marriage rights for gay couples, the facilitation of divorce proceedings, embryonic
stem cells research authorization and the removal of Catholicism being taught
at public schools.

Looking at society,
several polls are showing a secular trend. According to an annual survey by sociologist
Juan Díez-Nicolás, president of Asep research institute, less than 25 percent
of Spaniards say they practice Catholicism beyond social events like weddings
and baptisms.

Regarding abortion, the
daily El País carried out a survey that found 65 percent of Spaniards support
abortion in the first three months.

The Catholic Church is not
alone in its campaign against abortion. Pro-life activists are checking the
activities of the clinics accredited for voluntary termination of pregnancies.
As a result of their formal complaints, police investigations have opened files
against various clinics, but defenders of the proposed reform are not sleeping.

In order to promote the
abortion law, they started a YouTube channel, called "A favor 2009, Por el
Cambio de la Ley
en España" (In favor 2009, for the change of Spanish law), which can be viewed at
http://www.youtube.com/user/afavor2009.

 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • crowepps

    These numbers are really interesting. Googled around a little and discovered there were apprx. 476,000 live births in Spain every year. If in-country abortions total 112,000 then approximately 19% of pregnancies are aborted under the tight regulations and resistence to service described. This would not include women who went to England for an abortion. At the same time, news reports state that there is "an increasing problem of illegal abortion" in Spain where foreigners are coming in for extremely late-term abortions.

     

    Apparently a church which disapproves, strict limits, professionals refusing to provide service and lots of government hoops to jump through don’t make this problem go away, and those are precisely the types of solutions that anti-legal abortion activists insist should be put in place because they will make abortion disappear here.

  • invalid-0

    Abortion is murder, right?

  • mellankelly1

     Abortion is murder, right?

    No. Abortion is not and never has been "murder"… not even during the relatively short period of time that it was criminalized.

  • invalid-0

    If not murder, then what is it when one human rips apart and kills another, weaker human?

  • thompson

    This is just another instance of governments all over the world who are trying to take advantage of their power and control the lives of its people. online casino

  • mellankelly1

    Murder is a legal term. Murder is the intentional killing of a person, by a sane person with malice aforethought and without legal justification or provocation. Abortion fails to meet the criteria in even the smallest measure.

  • invalid-0

    Do you thing God agrees with abortion? Who are you, or who is anybody, to take the life of a baby – born or unborn? Wake up, submit to truth; do not give into deceptions any longer. Do you understand what consequences – psychological, moral, physical – abortion can have on a person? What’s the point of abortion? Do you not trust in God’s care for you and ALL people, including the unborn? Truth will set us free, remember?

  • invalid-0

    Do you thing [sic] God agrees with abortion?

    Whose God are you talking about? Yours, I presume. Why should the opinions of your God be relevant to anyone other than yourself?

    In any event, we are not a theocracy, so whatever this God agrees or doesn’t agree with is irrelevant to public policy. I mean, your God probably doesn’t agree with adultery, but that doesn’t mean we (should) have laws against that.

    Who are you, or who is anybody, to take the life of a baby – born or unborn?

    If it’s in your body, then you are completely within your rights to remove it. If it’s completely dependent on you to live, then its death is an unfortunate side effect. But that death is a lesser evil than forcing you to remain pregnant against your will.

    In other words: Who are you, or who is anybody, to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will?

    Wake up, submit to truth; do not give into deceptions any longer.

    Yes, you should.

    Do you understand what consequences – psychological, moral, physical – abortion can have on a person?

    Yes. But most people are perfectly fine with the procedure, even grateful that it got them out of an unwanted pregnancy. I mean, postpartum depression is a widespread problem, but it would be pretty stupid to suggest that we make pregnancy illegal because of that, yes?

    What’s the point of abortion?

    Um… terminating a pregnancy when you don’t want to be pregnant. I thought that was obvious.

    Do you not trust in God’s care for you and ALL people, including the unborn?

    I’ve yet to meet any deity willing to pay my insurance bills, so no, I don’t.

    Truth will set us free, remember?

    Apparently you haven’t.

  • invalid-0

    Ever heard of Natural Law? BTW, there is objective truth – and my God is your God – even if you deny this. Your denial of objective morality and objective truth does not make it cease to exist. So, by your standard of thinking, we should have no laws unless EVERY person agrees with that law?- no laws against murder, no laws against rape, none against thievery and child abuse?? Should the state (government) allow in law such hideous acts against other people? Analogy: abortion.

  • invalid-0

    Ever heard of Natural Law?

    Yes. But do you mean Stoic natural law, Christian natural law, Islamic natural law, Hobbes’ natural law, or liberal natural law?

    BTW, there is objective truth – and my God is your God – even if you deny this. Your denial of objective morality and objective truth does not make it cease to exist.

    Prove it.

    So, by your standard of thinking, we should have no laws unless EVERY person agrees with that law?- no laws against murder, no laws against rape, none against thievery and child abuse?? Should the state (government) allow in law such hideous acts against other people?

    Show me a large segment of the population consisting of people in good conscience who support murder, or rape, or thievery, or child abuse. Abortion is not like any of those things, despite your virulent hatred of it. The fact that you despise abortion is an aspect of your personal belief system, and you have no moral right or privilege to impose that on those who don’t share it. Sorry.

  • invalid-0

    I am not attempting to “impose” my “personal belief system” on anyone. Natural law is Natural law. BTW, Natural Law is just that – Natural! In other words, any reasonable person could understand and accept it – regardless of religious and supernatural beliefs. An example is how Jews, Muslims, and Christians can all consider human life, even unborn life, sacred. BTW, what constitutes a “good conscience?” Are you suggesting that there is some objective scale by which one can have a “good” conscience as contrary to a “bad” conscience? If so, how?

  • invalid-0

    So are you saying that speaking truth is worse than killing life in the womb?

  • invalid-0

    I am not attempting to “impose” my “personal belief system” on anyone.

    Then stop doing so. It’s annoying, and doesn’t speak well of you as a person.

    Natural law is Natural law.

    Yeah, kind of like religion is religion.

    BTW, Natural Law is just that – Natural! In other words, any reasonable person could understand and accept it – regardless of religious and supernatural beliefs.

    Well, lots of perfectly good people reject your conception of “Natural Law.”

    An example is how Jews, Muslims, and Christians can all consider human life, even unborn life, sacred.

    That doesn’t necessarily mean they oppose abortion.

    BTW, what constitutes a “good conscience?” Are you suggesting that there is some objective scale by which one can have a “good” conscience as contrary to a “bad” conscience?

    No. But the fact that these are people leading healthy, happy lives—not depraved libertines who cry out to be saved from their own desperation—is a pretty strong clue.

  • invalid-0

    So are you saying that speaking truth is worse than killing life in the womb?

    You can speak all you want. It’s a free country, after all. But when you support policies that force women to remain pregnant against their will, then you cross the line into evil—and we will fight that evil until it is gone.

  • therealistmom

    wouldn’t impose these kinds of artificial morality. Evolution has helpedHomo sapiens to develop a set of universal morals (“the Golden Rule”) across most civilizations because it has been to an evolutionary advantage. Almost universally the most intelligent animals are the ones who have developed the strongest social groups, looking at the great apes, dolphins, elephants and the like. The law of reciprocation ensures that animals will help provide for each other… humans have gone further and developed empathy. Who is more moral, the person who does not harm other feeling beings because they empathize with their emotions, or the person who does it only because they are afraid their sky-daddy will condemn them to torment?

    “Natural” laws also are not exactly kind to the young of animals. Rabbits are lucky in that they can reabsorb litters back into the doe’s body if the environment is too crowded or hostile. Other animals kill their young after birthing them if over-stressed or otherwise unable to provide for them.

    Biblical law is not “natural” law. And thank Bob for that. If that was the case we would be stoning to death people who worked on Sunday, enslaving the virgin women of neighboring tribes after slaughtering the men, non-virgin women (including ripping the fetuses from the pregnant women, just to be sure) and the male children, and selling our daughters into slavery.

  • invalid-0

    I am not forcing anything. Free will is yours to do with as you wish, even if you want to kill your own baby. Free will is the Creator’s gift to humanity. Nonetheless, that does not take away the responsibility of the government to make good laws (e.g. against murder, against rape, etc.) Of course no law of the state can absolutely force anyone to do anything. Yet, because the state is not the Creator, it, like the individual, has a responsibility to respect the laws of nature and of the Creator. Like the individual human, the state is not its own creator and is supposed to be at the service of Truth. The point is: no law against abortion is attempting “force” anybody’s free will. Yet, it is attempting to protect the sacred life within the womb. An analogy is any government’s law against rape. The law is not attempting to stop a man from having sex, by force. Rather, the INTENT of the law is to protect the innocent woman from violation.

  • invalid-0

    Of course, what is “natural” for humans is not what is “natural” for animals. You, unlike the animals, possess – at least potentially – human reason. Such reason is far different – and, might I say, superior – than anything dubbed “reason” found in the animal world; and yes, I did say anything. Show me a dog that can even imagine eternity; or an elephant that can count to one million; or a cat that considers the morality of killing the mouse. HUMAN natural law is different, albeit we have all fallen short of this potential at times and for various reasons.

  • invalid-0

    Natural Law = Natural Law is not the same as religion = religion. Here’s why: First off, “Natural Law” is a proper noun. An analogy would be like saying Obama = Obama. This is self-evident. Of course, some people may say that there are differences in what IS “Natural Law.” Like Aristotle and others, I would suggest the term “all or for the most part” as very helpful. With any definition, there are potentially going to be people with “axes to grind” that will suggest a different definition. Nonetheless, “Natural Law” is, in my experience, a sufficiently specific term. The term “religion,” on the other hand, is a term that can mean a WIDE variety of things to many people of reason. Although one could specify what religion is in general, unlike “Natural Law” it is a very broad category of noun. Therefore, the answer is “No” — Natural Law = Natural Law IS NOT like religion = religion.

  • invalid-0

    Nonetheless, “Natural Law” is, in my experience, a sufficiently specific term.

    You still haven’t clarified which specific formulation of “Natural Law” you’re talking about. For all I know, you are Muslim and are referring to Islamic natural law.

  • crowepps

    Such reason is far different – and, might I say, superior – than anything dubbed "reason" found in the animal world; and yes, I did say anything. Show me a dog that can even imagine eternity; or an elephant that can count to one million; or a cat that considers the morality of killing the mouse.

    Unless you’re capable of incredible psychic powers, you have no clue what a dog imagines, how high an elephant counts or whether a cat considers morality.  Your humanocentric bias ignores the fact that animals evidence love, compassion and self-sacrifice, but don’t seem to reach human levels of greed, envy, rage, murder, rape, joy in persecution and sheer spiteful nastiness so evident in the average group of humans.  And out of which we seem to have constructed the qualities of our ‘God’.

     

    In another post your stated: 

    Do you not trust in God’s care for you and ALL people, including the unborn?

    Well, no, actually, considering the historical and current maternal and infant mortality rates.  God’s ‘care’ seems to be pretty lousy actually.

  • http://www.sylvieshene.com invalid-0

    I wish all the pro-lifers read the article “PROTECTING LIFE AFTER BIRTH” by Alice Miller in the link below and digest the information in it for them to see that nothing is what it seems and people that proclaim to be pro-life are really against life and people that are pro-choice are really pro-life. Please read the article in the link below to see the facts that people that proclaim to be pro-life are really ignorant that put all life in danger.

    http://www.sylvieshene.com/articles-protecting_life_after_birth.htm

    http://www.alice-miller.com

    Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a crime against her, her unborn child and a crime against humanity.

    http://www.sylvieshene.com/articles-protecting_life_after_birth.htm

  • http://www.sylvieshene.com invalid-0

    What makes my blood boil is when I hear the hypocrites say: that they want to be a voice for the voiceless, the fetus, the fetus is not suffering, there are millions of children around the world being abused and suffering, that later put themselves in danger and the whole society; why not be a voice for the children already here that are being abused under the disguise of discipline suffering and really need someone to speak up for them. I bet these same people believe in corporal punishment to make children obedient, raising robots like them.
    As Alice Miller says in her flyer “The Roots of Violence are NOT Unknown” “As beaten children are not allowed to defend themselves, they must suppress their anger and rage against their parents who have humiliated them, killed their inborn empathy, and insulted their dignity. They will take out this rage later, as adults, on scapegoats, mostly on their own children. Deprived of empathy, some of them will direct their anger against themselves (in eating disorders, drug addiction, depression etc.), or against other adults (in wars, terrorism, delinquency etc.)”

    http://www.alice-miller.com/flyers_en.php

    http://www.sylvieshene.com/articles-protecting_life_after_birth.htm

  • invalid-0

    Can we stick to the issue, please? Instead of assuming what “these people” otherwise believe or don’t believe, why don’t we stick to the issue of the slaughtering of the innocent??? Let us not avoid the issue at hand. The issue is the killing and destruction of INNOCENT unborn life. Of course, whether I am Muslim or not does not impact the Natural Law argument; again, Natural Law is universal and based upon reason. Now are you going to ask what reason is, or “whose” reason? Please. Perhaps this and God’s logic are too far above your own. For the Lord himself says: “My ways are not your ways.” Perhaps, and I say this with all sincerity, you would do best by beseeching the Creator to know and realize that which you can only know more fully by his Grace. What a contradiction to state that “abortion (‘rights’) protects life.” Do you not understand what abortion is? Unless you yourself are profiting financially from the abortion industry, I cannot understand why you would be in support of such slaughter of innocent HUMAN life. Would you advocate this be done to a dog or some other animal? If not, then why a human? Without the right to life, there are no other rights. As far as the life of the mother is concerned – yes, I did say mother and not “fetus carrier” – should we not be MORE concerned with the many dangers of abortion, which are far greater than those associated with the average delivery.
    Look, I understand the human heart; I understand how selfish humans – all of us – can be at times. We do not desire a baby for multiple reasons. Yet, is this the fault of the innocent baby?? Don’t be decieved any longer. It’s ok, there are many people who want to support you in your decision to carry the baby to term. Why isn’t adoption an option? We can never justify abortion; that’s the simple truth, no matter how hard we try. BTW, Do I believe that life AFTER birth should be protected in ALL its forms: YES! Yes, I do – the aged, the poor, the homeless, the ill, and all the vulnerable ought to be defended as appropriate.

  • invalid-0

    You state “that animals evidence love, compassion and self-sacrifice.” However, you are, like me, using an anthropocentric measure – are you not?? I am talking about reason, human reason; therefore, why shouldn’t I use an anthropocentric measure? Yet, although you rebuke me for using it, you yourself use it to speak of “evidence” of love, self-sacrifice, and compassion in animals. As I stated earlier, as shown by scientific study — or not shown — these “evidences” are a far cry from human love, compassion, and self-sacrifice. I am not neglecting totally their validity. I am merely saying that they are of a different guality. For humans, self-sacrifice often means going beyond their lower animal instincts and submitting to their higher ideals (human reason.) This does not always happen, of course — as in murder, theft, rape, abortion and every other evil. These things are precisely evil (that is, they lack a good) because humans are capable of more (due to reason.) Of course, we don’t look upon the mentally ill person who steals in the same way as we would a mentally stable person (one who has the fuller capacity to reason) who steals. Analogously, we don’t condemn animals for doing what for humans would be considered “evil” or wrong. As an aside, I am definitely not equating a mentally ill person with any animal. By its very nature, the human life must ALWAYS take precedence. The nature of the human is different from the nature of other animals. The human, although an “animal,” is a RATIONAL animal. It is EVIDENT, based upon simple observation, that animals do not have the same capacity for reason. Sure, some are nice and cute and wouldn’t rape or steal — however, they don’t even have the knowledge of rape or steal. Does this make them superior? No. A human child does is nice and cute and normally would not have knowledge of committing grave evil. However, this is just factual and does not make the child’s life totally fulfilling. It merely makes the child innocent. A human is fulfilled (naturally speaking) when, knowing the many options that lie before him or her, that human actually chooses (by way of reason) the good. Of course sometimes this choice is obvious and sometimes it isn’t. But, the whole point of human “freedom” is that we have the freedom to choose the right thing (“the good.”) THAT is true freedom. Since we are talking about abortion, it seems to be an obvious choice: Choose Life! You won’t regret it!!

  • invalid-0

    Perhaps this and God’s logic are too far above your own.

    You are God? wow. thanks for visiting our blog.

  • invalid-0

    Hi Santiago.

    My God is perfectly fine with abortion.

    I believe that women have dominion over their own bodies, and that for anyone else to deny them that control is Evil, with a capital E.

    It doesn’t matter whether this “human life” in the womb is innocent, or a person, or a virtuoso violinist. It is inside a womb inside a woman who is an autonomous person who does not give up any of her rights when she becomes pregnant. One of these rights is bodily integrity. And that means that if she wants to evict this “human life” inside her, then that is her right.

    Is it moral to do so? That depends on a lot of things, not least her own beliefs and value system (which may or may not be the same as yours). But that is separate from the question of whether she has the right to do so, which she absolutely does.

    Not everyone lives by your creed, Santiago. And that includes the parts that make you go “OMG OMG how can you POSSIBLY disagree on this?!?!?” The world is bigger than you think—and as long as you persist in attempting to make everyone live by your own personal code of morality, you’re going to keep getting your ass handed to you by people who value the freedoms guaranteed by this country’s Constitution. I suggest you worry less about mastering others, and more about mastering yourself.

  • invalid-0

    (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.

    Santiago, is this your understanding of “natural law?”

  • invalid-0

    You’re welcome. I never said I was God. However, wouldn’t you agree that God’s logic is higher than basic human logic? Otherwise, that god is no god — correct? Ok, so your god is perfectly fine with abortion?? Are you speaking of a false god, since the true God wishes no evil and is, rather, omnibenevolent. Who is this “god?” Is it the god of money, that desires more evil abortions simply in order to stuff the pockets? Do you really believe a God that created this good earth, and all within it, could be perfectly fine with abortion? Maybe I should concern myself with mastering myself, as all people should. Yet, that is not this issue of this blog. Do you REALLY desire truth? Maybe we should start with this question: Do people have an inherent “right” to kill an unborn baby? It is self-evident that there is nothing that could give us such a “right.” Ok, so you say that women have dominion over their own bodies. Whether one agrees with you or not, the issue is whether or not they have dominion (total, in the case of abortion) over ANOTHER’s body. THIS is the issue. Therefore, abortion is morally UNjustifiable, regardless of what human law (government) may state. Case closed. Thank you. God will provide! Viva Espana! Long live Spain!…and its Catholic-Christian heritage!!! Viva Cristo Rey! May the TRUE God guide you to all truth! May the Most Blessed Virgin Mary pray for you and intercede for your salvation, delivering you evildoers from the grip of the Evil One! Pax

  • crowepps

    Please make up your mind whether you want to talk about ‘reason’ or ‘religion’ since the two are not the same thing and at times seem to be mutually exclusive.

     

    Your argument for ‘natural law’ fails when considered with ‘reason’ because if something is ‘natural’ then everyone will naturally do it. 

     

    The corollary is that if people persistently do something, then it’s ‘natural’ for them to do so and not prohibited by ‘natural law’.

  • invalid-0

    I never said I was God.

    And yet you presume to lecture us on what God wants, thinks and, oddly enough, your opinions and God’s seem to be indistinguishable from one another.

  • crowepps

    However, wouldn’t you agree that God’s logic is higher than basic human logic?

    Don’t you think it’s kind of presumptuous of you to presume to explain "God’s logic" to everyone?  Even to presume that God USES logic?  The religious keep saying that God’s Will is beyond human understanding so what gives you special insight and superior perception into God?

     

    You can put ‘God’ into your posts endlessly, but actually what we are hearing are your personal opinions which you are attributing to God.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, I DO have personal opinions. All people do. However, MY personal opinions are not merely such, at least in regard to this issue. My “personal” opinions are shaped by Truth. Therefore, the views I state in regard to abortion are NOT MERELY personal opinions but convictions based on truth. To accept Truth and God and Nature is actually true freedom from our often skewed views. I DO NOT MAKE A SINGLE PENNY FROM THESE VIEWS. However, I ask you: Are you profiting financially from abortion? Or, on the other hand, are you free to accept and embrace Truth?

  • invalid-0

    I only presume God’s views because it is God who has REVEALED them to us. I do not speak on my own authority, but his – which is not mere opinion. My “opinions” are indistinguishable from his? That’s a good thing, right?

  • invalid-0

    Dagnabit crowepps…you keep beating me to the point. I was just about to ask Santiago if he can point to any traditional interpretation of “natural law” that did not exclude and/or actively oppress women.

  • invalid-0

    Ok, so you say that women have dominion over their own bodies. Whether one agrees with you or not, the issue is whether or not they have dominion (total, in the case of abortion) over ANOTHER’s body.>>

    The fact that you stated that there’s possible disagreement on whether women have dominion over their own bodies negates everything you’ve ever said or ever will say about abortion. Or women.

  • crowepps

    Your belief that you alone have an exclusive knowledge of TRUTH is arrogant.  Your presumption that everyone who disagrees with you does so because there must be money in it for them is not only extremely insulting but frankly also pretty weird.

     

    My interest in this issue is because as a woman I may be directly affected by the resolution on this issue (unlike men) and because I value women’s lives, which I believe have value to society separate from producing children.  The sole purpose of women is not to produce and raise more men.

     

    The fact that you have a strong conviction that you know the TRUTH means absolutely nothing except that you believe that.  Other people have equally strong convictions that they know a TRUTH that is different from yours.  The problem with your grasping that may be that most of us here on this site are Americans, experienced with living in a diverse society in which people who have different opinions have to not only find a way to compromise but also to respect each others positions.  This country was founded because free people find the idea of an autocratic regime where one person or group gets to impose their idea of TRUTH on everyone else repugnant and oppressive.

  • invalid-0

    No, you are wrong. The fact that I’ve stated that there is disagreement on that issue only proves that there is disagreement. Perhaps some people agree with truth and some people don’t agree with truth; does this negate truth? No. Besides, the dominion of body issue is a whole other issue.

  • invalid-0

    To begin, I’ve never claimed an “exclusive knowledge of truth.” Truth is to be found by WHOEVER sincerely seeks it. I didn’t say that whoever “disagrees with me” must have a money agenda; go back and look. The issue wasn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with ME. The issue was about truth, and how, unless there is some other motive binding a person, that truth should be the obvious outcome of any sincere search for it. Of course, not all people are free to seek truth — financial profit sometimes being that which binds. Get the point? Cannot Americans also have convictions? In fact, conviction, not so called “diversity,” is that upon which the USA was based. Diversity of insignificant things is one thing; but diversity in regard to objective truth is contradictory at best. Get the point? The moral relativism that you seem to promote is in absolute contradiction to objective truth. Therefore, how can I believe a person that doesn’t even belief in truth to begin with? Is that your position?

  • crowepps
    To begin, I’ve never claimed an "exclusive knowledge of truth." Truth is to be found by WHOEVER sincerely seeks it.
     Yes, yes, and it’s only really the Truth if its exactly what YOU believe.
    I didn’t say that whoever "disagrees with me" must have a money agenda; go back and look. The issue wasn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with ME. The issue was about truth, and how, unless there is some other motive binding a person, that truth should be the obvious outcome of any sincere search for it. Of course, not all people are free to seek truth — financial profit sometimes being that which binds. Get the point?
     Yes, your point is that everyone would agree with you if they didn’t have dishonorable self-interest at the basis of their disagreement.
    Cannot Americans also have convictions? In fact, conviction, not so called "diversity," is that upon which the USA was based. Diversity of insignificant things is one thing; but diversity in regard to objective truth is contradictory at best. Get the point?
    If there wasn’t ‘diversity in regard to objective truth’ there wouldn’t be so many thousands of different denominations of churches in this country, most of which disagree about ‘objective truth’.
    The moral relativism that you seem to promote is in absolute contradiction to objective truth. Therefore, how can I believe a person that doesn’t even belief in truth to begin with? Is that your position?

    But we weren’t talking about moral relativism.  We were talking about how in a free country people of differing opinons have the absolute freedom of conscience right to live according to their own faith.  That neither you nor I nor anyone else gets to IMPOSE their particular ‘objective truth’ on others.  My position is that if there were such a thing as an absolute ‘objective truth’ in this matter, we wouldn’t even be discussing it – everyone would already be in agreement.

     

    Are there objective truths?  Sure.  "All humans breath air."  "Gravity keeps us from flying off the turning Earth."  "The sun is hot."  "Two and two equal four."  Those are all objective truths.

     

    "Abortion is murder."  Nope, not an objective truth.  If it were, everyone looking at that statement would agree with it and obviously people do not all agree.  Therefore it is instead an opinion.

  • crowepps

    That question wouldn’t help, however, because I’m sure that exclusion and oppression are ‘proof’ that ‘natural law’ shows that women are inferior beings who need men to tell them what to do.  Sigh.

     

    Just done reading "The Help" – it was kind of mindboggling to read the incredible congitive dissonance involved in ‘all Blacks are lazy, thieving and diseased’ together with ‘turn the babies over to your maid to raise, she’ll trot them in to see you once in a while when clean, fed and happy’.

     

    I’m afraid the abortion issue shows the same bizarre disconnect: ‘Women are lazy, selfish, sexually promiscuous, stupid and mentally unstable, so their role in life is OBVIOUSLY supposed to be home alone with BABIES, the most valuable lives ever!’

  • crowepps

    Funny, I know lots of other people who insist that God has revealed His opinions to THEM and their opinions are different from YOURS.

     

    So far as I know, your opinions are your opinions.  God’s opinions, however, seem to come through pretty garbled considering how many people claim that He’s saying entirely different things.  I would be more likely to believe your claim to speak on His authority if the message wasn’t something you already believed.  Has God ever told you something that was a complete surprise or that you’ve gotten something all wrong?

  • invalid-0

    Re: The Help…just pulled up the reviews. Looks good. Thanks for the heads-up.

    That question wouldn’t help, however, because I’m sure that exclusion and oppression are ‘proof’ that ‘natural law’ shows that women are inferior beings who need men to tell them what to do. Sigh.

    Snerk. Hey, you never know. If your guess is correct, at least it will be out there, discrediting the argument. Worth a shot, in my view.

  • invalid-0

    It is not that truth springs from me. haha. YOU seem to be suggesting that, not I. Rather, I have submitted to, and accepted, truth. I am not worried about who agrees or disagrees with me; I am not the issue; I am merely discussing the issue and am at the service of truth. By and large, the many “churches” agree more than disagree. Of course, there are disagreements. Yet, if those disagreements are of importance, can it be possible that some of those “churches” hold correct positions while others hold incorrect position. Otherwise, maybe both hold “correct” positions. However, this issue of abortion is a different type of issue. How can abortion be moral and immoral at the same time? It cannot. Therefore, is it not moral relativism to accept that abortion is both moral and immoral? (i.e., that both opinions are equal?)

  • invalid-0

    Again, it is not MY truth. I have only come to ACKNOWLEDGE and ACCEPT truth. I never said I got a direct revelation from God, if that is what you are suggesting — at least not in the common understanding of that term. There are many ways, beside direct supernatural individual revelation, to know God. First off, through philosophy and reason. Life is analagous. Any philosopher worth two cents can tell you that. Therefore, we can know SOMETHING of God on this earth. That is, we reject the extremes that say that we can either know nothing of God or that we can know God exactly as he is (Pantheism, basically.) That brings us to nature — and the goodness therein. Can you not see something of God’s goodness (think diversity of forms, creativity, life) in nature? I won’t go into the supernatural ways to know truth, yet these can also be philosophically upheld. It is sufficient to state that we can “know” natural truth via natural means. Yes? BTW, just because somebody says they’ve had a direct revelation from God doesn’t mean they have; you shouldn’t trust everything you hear. Also, a truth is not negated simply because somebody believes it before it is proclaimed. That is not the issue. The issue is its validity; and that alone.

  • invalid-0

    OK, well, enough said. Have a (great) life — thanks to she who bore you. Keep seeking Truth!

  • invalid-0

    BTW, just because somebody says they’ve had a direct revelation from God doesn’t mean they have; you shouldn’t trust everything you hear.

    Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. Many times, someone will come along, claiming to know what the Truth is, that everyone else has it wrong, etc. When of course, they really don’t know Truth any better than anyone else, or they have a very narrow understanding of it that reflects their own limited experiences and/or upbringing. Sometimes I’ll engage with them a bit, wasting their time just for fun. But I never take anything they say seriously—I just laugh at their own arrogance and inflated self-worth, and wonder how sad their lives must be in order to derive pleasure from trolling others on Internet forums.