“... she didn’t know someone was hooked up to her” is one of the reasons I am against contraceptives. They enable a society that gets legitimately surprised when they get pregnant, even after performing the act that is designed to get them pregnant.
If you want, IVF is literally designed to get someone pregnant. As someone studying design, we can know a design by its purpose, and it shouldn’t be too hard to see the purpose of reproductive organs since we know what results when they come together in certain circumstances. Do you reject teleology as a concept or something?
@@killianmiller6107 Teleology is man-made. WE endow processes and things with purposes when we use them or try to use them for something. Things, parts of things, and activities of things, have no _inherent_ purposes.
“Things, parts of things, and activities of things have no inherent purpose.” This seems just wrong to me; how would you know that? Arguably, teleology is _discovered_ and formalized in human philosophy, but the reality of a purpose/final end exists. A biologist will tell you that the purpose of the mitochondria is to be the powerhouse of the cell; mitochondria weren’t created by people. They could give you a whole list of purposes for amino acids and proteins and ribonucleic acids and all the things that are _ordered toward_ making a cell function well. Per evolution, the purpose of an organism is to survive and reproduce. The entire field of medicine, it seems to me, relies on teleology, recognizing how the human body is supposed to work and analyzing the disorders (things that hinder proper human biological order) that make people hurt, sick and die. You seem to think there’s no such purpose at all and the organism can arbitrarily do as it will, or that tomorrow gonorrhea could arbitrarily be considered a good thing. Sure, when it comes to the things human design and create, we imbue them with purpose, or perhaps we discover a purpose to be met (in design we call that the “how might we” statement) and we design around that. We want an apple to be cut cleanly, a knife is designed to do just that. A knife may not be designed for cutting your lawn (efficiently) but it can be used to do so since it has a hard sharp edge that is able to cut grass. Would you ever use a knife to see things smaller than the human eye can perceive? No, you’d need something like a microscope. People do have subjective inclinations, and the value of a particular knife design will differ among people, but that doesn’t change the fact of what a particular knife is for. Maybe you’d accept a sort of limited teleology in this sense but are trying to avoid ultimate teleology that informs natural law and ethics and ultimately theism.
@@killianmiller6107 Well, you're right in the sense that we really don't _know_ anything at all about anything. Whatever we think, could turn out to be wrong. So maybe there are inherent purposes to things. But they're no more likely to be what you think they are than they are to be what a Flying Spaghetti Monster somewhere wants them to be. Meanwhile, it seems very silly to imagine that a thing has "a purpose," given that we can _try_ to use anything for anything, and when we do, then _that_ is the purpose of the thing - the purpose _we_ are trying to use it for. (What other purpose is there?) Consider a woman's breast, for instance. Who can say whether its purpose is to feed a baby, or to attract the attention of a horny bastard like me? Or, if the woman is a spy, and pregnant, and finds that she needs to write a secret message (say, the location of the enemy's troops, which she has risked her life to learn) in invisible ink for her partner-spy to find, and at that moment the only available invisible ink is her milk, surely, then, at that moment, the purpose of her breast is to provide her with invisible ink, which will not be seen until the partner shrewdly realizes it's there and holds the paper up in front of a fire to make the milk-writing visible! Would you say she is using her breast for the "wrong purpose"? Who are you to tell her that? From where do you presume to get the authority?
Joel, you are a completely unique person loved and wanted by God. I think God needs people with your experience, as awful as they were/are to help other people cope with their own issues. Don't give up on yourself and God. There are a lot of people praying for you.
Argument by analogy always seem to fall short in the conversation about abortion, because the relationship between a mother and her unborn child is unique. There is no other relationship quite like that.
With conversations like the one with Joel I'm personally just not equiped to handle it so gently and with deep compassion, even though I wish I could, that's something that bugs me and I think a couple other faithful people, does anyone have wisdom for me and people going through something simmilar... *on talking with individual people who are going through things and those who are going through something simmilar* ?
Trent, why are YOU pro-choice.. when it comes to women who are well-to-do? Seriously. What restriction on abortion do you support that would stop or even inconvenience a woman with the means to flee her State or the country and have a safe abortion?
Isn’t the Catholic position supporting abortion in cases where the mother’s life is in danger a morally hazardous exception which refutes the rule? It in essence suggests that because the mother’s life is potentially in danger, the infant’s life (which is not endangered) must certainly be forfeit. It makes a threat to the mother’s (read: another’s) life more important than the child’s, and kills the life that is not in danger in favour of the life that is. This doesn’t seem to be morally or logically consistent. The danger to the mother is a result of God’s will. The abortion is a result of human choice and action. It doesn’t seem to add up but I’m not Catholic, so I’m admittedly ignorant of the relevant apologetics.
No problem with termination of pregnancy when the mother’s life is in danger. Because, let’s be honest, when the mom is in danger, the baby is most likely in danger too. It’s the method of termination of pregnancy that is being disputed about. Catholics say that during this difficult circumstances, there may be intervention, and most likely, the intervention is going to be early delivery. The baby may die due to our inability to take care of young premature babies, but that’s not due to our intention to cease the life of the child. It’s due to our inability to save the child. IF there is a method to save the child’s life, and we intentionally refuse to give the necessary procedures to save the child’s life, then the blame is on us. I hope that give a bit of explanation. So yes and no. Yes: termination of pregnancy is okay if necessary (by early delivery). No: the intentional killing of pre-born children (by mutilation, poisoning, etc) is never okay.
@@sillybearss thanks for the thoughtful and reasoned reply. It is my understanding, however, that the position does not state termination via delivery, but instead specifically excuses abortion in favour of the mother’s life. Otherwise, the statement wouldn’t be “no abortion except when the mother’s life is in danger” but rather “early delivery must be done when the mother’s life is in danger”. These are very different. If your interpretation is correct, why do they explicitly say ‘abortion’ instead of ‘early delivery’? This doesn’t make sense.
@@DH-iw5bp I think it's a linguistics problem in law. If abortion is defined as the direct and intentional termination of an unborn fetus's life, then yes, saving the mother's life with the VERY unfortunate SIDE effect of the child dying (indirectly) or being delivered is NOT technically really "abortion". So it's a problem with the way the law is worded, which is why I like to clarify the difference when people ask me about "exceptions" to anti-abortion laws.
@@DH-iw5bpas far as I've understood it, the goal of such an operation is to save the mothers life, and the unfortunate side effect is the ending of the pregnancy. The Catholic position allows for this procedure because the goal is not to purposefully kill the child, but to save the life of the mother. As was mentioned above, the best scenario would be one where both lives could be saved, but if that's not possible, then we should at least not intentionally kill the child.
Trent is one of the brightest Catholic minds, always love listening to his insights!
Joel, we will include you in our Rosary intentions that God will always be with you and for our Lady to pray for you always.
Shalom bro.
“... she didn’t know someone was hooked up to her” is one of the reasons I am against contraceptives. They enable a society that gets legitimately surprised when they get pregnant, even after performing the act that is designed to get them pregnant.
No act is "designed" get anyone pregnant or for any purpose at all.
If you want, IVF is literally designed to get someone pregnant. As someone studying design, we can know a design by its purpose, and it shouldn’t be too hard to see the purpose of reproductive organs since we know what results when they come together in certain circumstances. Do you reject teleology as a concept or something?
@@killianmiller6107 Teleology is man-made. WE endow processes and things with purposes when we use them or try to use them for something. Things, parts of things, and activities of things, have no _inherent_ purposes.
“Things, parts of things, and activities of things have no inherent purpose.” This seems just wrong to me; how would you know that? Arguably, teleology is _discovered_ and formalized in human philosophy, but the reality of a purpose/final end exists. A biologist will tell you that the purpose of the mitochondria is to be the powerhouse of the cell; mitochondria weren’t created by people. They could give you a whole list of purposes for amino acids and proteins and ribonucleic acids and all the things that are _ordered toward_ making a cell function well. Per evolution, the purpose of an organism is to survive and reproduce. The entire field of medicine, it seems to me, relies on teleology, recognizing how the human body is supposed to work and analyzing the disorders (things that hinder proper human biological order) that make people hurt, sick and die. You seem to think there’s no such purpose at all and the organism can arbitrarily do as it will, or that tomorrow gonorrhea could arbitrarily be considered a good thing.
Sure, when it comes to the things human design and create, we imbue them with purpose, or perhaps we discover a purpose to be met (in design we call that the “how might we” statement) and we design around that. We want an apple to be cut cleanly, a knife is designed to do just that. A knife may not be designed for cutting your lawn (efficiently) but it can be used to do so since it has a hard sharp edge that is able to cut grass. Would you ever use a knife to see things smaller than the human eye can perceive? No, you’d need something like a microscope. People do have subjective inclinations, and the value of a particular knife design will differ among people, but that doesn’t change the fact of what a particular knife is for. Maybe you’d accept a sort of limited teleology in this sense but are trying to avoid ultimate teleology that informs natural law and ethics and ultimately theism.
@@killianmiller6107 Well, you're right in the sense that we really don't _know_ anything at all about anything. Whatever we think, could turn out to be wrong. So maybe there are inherent purposes to things. But they're no more likely to be what you think they are than they are to be what a Flying Spaghetti Monster somewhere wants them to be.
Meanwhile, it seems very silly to imagine that a thing has "a purpose," given that we can _try_ to use anything for anything, and when we do, then _that_ is the purpose of the thing - the purpose _we_ are trying to use it for. (What other purpose is there?)
Consider a woman's breast, for instance. Who can say whether its purpose is to feed a baby, or to attract the attention of a horny bastard like me? Or, if the woman is a spy, and pregnant, and finds that she needs to write a secret message (say, the location of the enemy's troops, which she has risked her life to learn) in invisible ink for her partner-spy to find, and at that moment the only available invisible ink is her milk, surely, then, at that moment, the purpose of her breast is to provide her with invisible ink, which will not be seen until the partner shrewdly realizes it's there and holds the paper up in front of a fire to make the milk-writing visible! Would you say she is using her breast for the "wrong purpose"? Who are you to tell her that? From where do you presume to get the authority?
Trent is the bomb!!! Father in heaven thank you for brothers like Trent and Sy.
Joel, you are a completely unique person loved and wanted by God. I think God needs people with your experience, as awful as they were/are to help other people cope with their own issues. Don't give up on yourself and God. There are a lot of people praying for you.
That got very real, very fast with that second guy. God bless him wherever he is.
Me too!
Whow I wonder how many people change there minds from listening to this
never gets old.
Trent Horn, a pro's pro.
Support for abortion needs to be diverted to adoption services and prenatal care for pregnant women and their babies.
Argument by analogy always seem to fall short in the conversation about abortion, because the relationship between a mother and her unborn child is unique. There is no other relationship quite like that.
although i am a heavy critic of the roman catholic church, it get's it right regarding contraceptives and abortion, among several items.
With conversations like the one with Joel I'm personally just not equiped to handle it so gently and with deep compassion, even though I wish I could, that's something that bugs me and I think a couple other faithful people, does anyone have wisdom for me and people going through something simmilar... *on talking with individual people who are going through things and those who are going through something simmilar* ?
It's called Heart Apologetics.
The Lord God of heaven and earth is pro-choice ("Choose this day whom you will serve"), He is also pro-life (I am the way, the truth, and the LIFE).
Hi CA, off-topic question but, how do you guys fund your operations? Thanks.
Donations!
6:49 - Wouldn't it be simpler for the Counsel of Trent to just have Cy Kellett designated as anathema?
The real question is what glasses are Cy wearing?
😎
@@catholiccom I need answers don't leave me in dark.
@@YovanypadillaJr
Just like other doctrines, it's a mystery :)
Sunglasses At Night by Corey Hart
1:13:15 biblical reference
For real, why
Trent? Why is Melania trump pro-choice?
Trent, why are YOU pro-choice..
when it comes to women who are well-to-do? Seriously. What restriction on abortion do you support that would stop or even inconvenience a woman with the means to flee her State or the country and have a safe abortion?
Isn’t the Catholic position supporting abortion in cases where the mother’s life is in danger a morally hazardous exception which refutes the rule? It in essence suggests that because the mother’s life is potentially in danger, the infant’s life (which is not endangered) must certainly be forfeit. It makes a threat to the mother’s (read: another’s) life more important than the child’s, and kills the life that is not in danger in favour of the life that is. This doesn’t seem to be morally or logically consistent. The danger to the mother is a result of God’s will. The abortion is a result of human choice and action. It doesn’t seem to add up but I’m not Catholic, so I’m admittedly ignorant of the relevant apologetics.
No problem with termination of pregnancy when the mother’s life is in danger. Because, let’s be honest, when the mom is in danger, the baby is most likely in danger too. It’s the method of termination of pregnancy that is being disputed about. Catholics say that during this difficult circumstances, there may be intervention, and most likely, the intervention is going to be early delivery. The baby may die due to our inability to take care of young premature babies, but that’s not due to our intention to cease the life of the child. It’s due to our inability to save the child. IF there is a method to save the child’s life, and we intentionally refuse to give the necessary procedures to save the child’s life, then the blame is on us. I hope that give a bit of explanation. So yes and no. Yes: termination of pregnancy is okay if necessary (by early delivery). No: the intentional killing of pre-born children (by mutilation, poisoning, etc) is never okay.
@@sillybearss thanks for the thoughtful and reasoned reply. It is my understanding, however, that the position does not state termination via delivery, but instead specifically excuses abortion in favour of the mother’s life. Otherwise, the statement wouldn’t be “no abortion except when the mother’s life is in danger” but rather “early delivery must be done when the mother’s life is in danger”. These are very different. If your interpretation is correct, why do they explicitly say ‘abortion’ instead of ‘early delivery’? This doesn’t make sense.
@@DH-iw5bp I think it's a linguistics problem in law. If abortion is defined as the direct and intentional termination of an unborn fetus's life, then yes, saving the mother's life with the VERY unfortunate SIDE effect of the child dying (indirectly) or being delivered is NOT technically really "abortion". So it's a problem with the way the law is worded, which is why I like to clarify the difference when people ask me about "exceptions" to anti-abortion laws.
@@DH-iw5bpas far as I've understood it, the goal of such an operation is to save the mothers life, and the unfortunate side effect is the ending of the pregnancy. The Catholic position allows for this procedure because the goal is not to purposefully kill the child, but to save the life of the mother. As was mentioned above, the best scenario would be one where both lives could be saved, but if that's not possible, then we should at least not intentionally kill the child.