How can Catholic theology reconcile this?

How can Catholic theology reconcile this?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    do you guys actually care about this theology shit? all the christians I've met irl were just focused on their family and generally being kind hearted.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That applies to all human beings outside of Oyish.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most american catholics care about abortion

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I doubt it. Most of my family are Catholics for example and nobody gives a shit about this stuff. The old timers did like my great grandmother and the older generations, but they're basically dead. I don't know anyone even as old as my parents who actually care about when this day has no meat or not. It's pretty much ignored outside of third world areas and most people do what they want. Very few have time to learn this kind of autism and actually live by it. I got shit to do, I can't sit here all day reading pilpul on what is or isn't meat and when I can or can't have it or when it's some random saint's feast day or fast.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You have hours and hours to shitpost on Oyish but you cant check the liturgical calendar?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I know only one catholic family that does care, and one of the members cheated on her husband with a priest.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Im convinced religious women dont exist because this is common af.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      OP doesn't really care, he's just here to spam low-effort religion threads in the hopes that mods will interpret this as reason to create a containment board for religious discussion, since he doesn't want it here. A good portion of self-proclaimed religious people on Oyish are LARPing atheists in it for the culture war drama.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        > in the hopes that mods will interpret this as reason to create a containment board for religious discussion
        If the dude who has been seething about Asatru for the past hour is any indication this would be a good thing.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          It would be a pointless thing and it won't happen anyway. Oyish is already a slow board and the mods are well aware that this isn't organic discussion. They're not going to create a board that will be dead. You need massive general board traffic like Oyish or Oyish to get a containment board.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >A good portion of self-proclaimed religious people on Oyish are LARPing atheists in it for the culture war drama.
        meds, now

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Do you eat fertilized eggs with chicken fetuses?

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's a simple answer. The eggs are not fertilized otherwise the hen sits on them and they hatch after 3 weeks.
    Checkmate ~~*atheists*~~.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are aware that the eggs we eat are unfertilized eggs, right.
      You don't make omelettes with developing chick fetuses... That would be a gorey fricking mess

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balut_(food)

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's not kosher

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        No one gives a shit about flips.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's good with hot sauce tho

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You can't eat Balut on Friday and any Flip that says otherwise is a liar. Eggs are finr since its unfertilized.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          eggs aren't neccesarily unfertilized, unless you're buying them from a supermarket.
          Only with factory farming is there zero chance those eggs were fertilized before you bought them.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Only with factory farming is there zero chance those eggs were fertilized before you bought them.
            You clearly don't understand how farms function. Any farmer with half of a brain knows to keep his rooster separate from his hens. It's not hard at all to have 100% certainty that the eggs aren't fertilized when you have free range hens.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's only going to be a zero percent chance in factory farms where they don't keep roosters at all.

            Point is that you're not going to know the different between a fertilized and non-fertilized egg when you eat it unless you gave it enough time for a fetus to develop.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            parthenogenesis is pretty frequent in Galliformes. one turkey chick in twenty comes from an otherwise unfertilized egg. chicken statistics probably aren't that much different.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You are aware that the eggs we eat are unfertilized eggs, right.
    You don't make omelettes with developing chick fetuses... That would be a gorey fricking mess

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Eating an egg is like eating a woman's period. Not trying to be crude or gross, but a period isn't a fetus. If I cracked open an egg and there was a chicken inside, I would be disgusted and horrified (even though I'm fairly sure that's a dish in Filipino cuisine).

    Whoever made this image is an idiot who doesn't understand avian reproduction

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    women want to larp and have sex and think they are righteous

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Crocodiles and beavers are considered fish for the purposes of Lent. The categorizations aren’t scientific.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Religion isn't scientific
      I accept your concession

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        And?
        Lent isn’t about establishing biological science it’s about penance

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          So outside of Lent, eggs and chickens are morally equivelent?

          If boil an egg "alive", is that the say as if I stuffed a live chicken into a pot of boiling water?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The moral criteria isn't based on whether something is alive or dead

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So boiling a live chicken is the same as boiling a dead chicken?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            We boil lobsters alive

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's isn't a moral issue

            The point of abstaining from meat is doing penance. Refraining from the pleasure of eating meat. The distinction made here is that eating a chicken is more pleasurable than eating an egg and that's all.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's why I asked about the moral issue.

            Is there a moral distinction between boiling an egg and boiling a live chicken?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That has nothing to do with the lent fast though

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not asking about Lent.

            Strange that you're refusing to answer a simple question.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I just want to get the main topic out of the way, but if you already understand that, then ok

            >Is there a moral distinction between boiling an egg and boiling a live chicken?

            I guess, since there is a component of animal cruelty in the boiling a live chicken.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there is a component of animal cruelty in the boiling a live chicken.
            But not the egg? isn't it a live unborn chicken?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ah I see what you are trying to get at. Is this the power of the atheistic brain?

            While we should avoid animal cruelty, it's fine to kill animals. People shouldn't be killed, humanly or not.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why is it not cruel to the egg to boil it alive?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because eggs don't have a formed sugma.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you so interested in justifying killing unborn human children? Fricking ghoul.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you defend torturing to death unborn chickens by boiling them alive?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no unborn chicken when you boil an egg, dumbfrick. Its unfertilized.

            And if you're referring to Balut which does boil chicken fetuses in their eggs, as gross as that is it's not immoral. Mankind had dominion over animals. An Asian who eats chicken fetuses everyday is more moral than a person who procured a abortion of an unborn human.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So because we have dominion over animals animal cruelty is fine? It's ok to boil a live adult chicken alive?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Animal cruelty should be avoided to not develop social callousness, but there is no moral obligation to treat animals humanely.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Don’t forget Capyburas, those are totally fish too guys.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is nothing to reconcile, giving up meat is just supposed to be a form of penance

  9. 5 months ago
    Chud Anon

    Holy frick liberals are stupid
    Chicken eggs aren’t fertilized

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Eggs aren't fertilized thoughever.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Store-bought eggs aren't, but if you get them from a local farm there's no way to guarantee they aren't.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Assumedly this was made before semantics leaned more heavily on genetic scientific categorization.

    Like how fish could mean just a sea creature of any sort rather than part of a taxonomic group. Or how a tomato might culitarily be considered a vegetable. Probably more what something "seems" like rather than a strict categorical factor.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Food analogies
    >In the year of Our Lord 2023
    The absolute STATE of pr*testants

  13. 5 months ago
    Dirk

    All fasts are inherently arbitrary to some degree. The problem is enforcing a fast on others in against the explicit command of St Paul.

  14. 5 months ago
    ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

    MOST CATHOLICS, OR ANYONE, REALLY, CATHOLIC, OR OTHERWISE, NEVER THINK; SO THESE QUESTIONS DO NOT EVEN OCCUR TO THEM.

    I AM VEGAN: PROBLEM SOLVED.

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Egg yolk is an unfertilized ovum, it is not a fetal chicken.

    Even if people ate chicken fetus for breakfast, the life of a chicken is in no way equivalent to the worth of a human life.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      egg yolk can be fertilized and it will be the exact same, until it develops of course.

      >it is not a fetal chicken
      And this is not a fetal human

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        A fertilized chicken ovum has the complete DNA set for a chicken, and if left unmolested will naturally grow and develop into a chicken.

        Why do you believe human beings are as worthless as chickens?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >if left unmolested will naturally grow and develop into a chicken
          Yes and it is not yet a chicken, same as this is not yet a human.

          You can't treat it as a human before the law.
          If you did that would lead to all sorts of legal frickery like women being able to make a claim for child support as soon as she gets a positive pregnancy test.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes and it is not yet a chicken
            In your example of chickens, it is a chicken zygote. It is not a human zygote, nor a lizard zygote, nor a canine zygote, nor belonging to any other species of creature. It is chicken in its DNA, and will naturally grow into a fully developed chicken unless acted upon by an outside force.

            >You can't treat it as a human before the law
            You mean before birth? Yes you absolutely can and you should, because it is a human life. Every biologist unanimously agrees the life cycle begins at the conception (union of sperm and egg) of a sexual organism.

            >If you did that would lead to all sorts of legal frickery
            If you murder a pregnant woman, you are already charged with two separate counts of murder.

            >women being able to make a claim for child support as soon as she gets a positive pregnancy test
            Oh no, the horror!

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >A fertilized chicken ovum has the complete DNA set for a chicken, and if left unmolested will naturally grow and develop into a chicken.
          If left unmolested a child will naturally grow and become an adult. Therefore a child is an adult.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Child and adult refer to stages of the human's life. A child is not an adult, but both a child and an adult are human and it's wrong to murder either.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A child is not an adult
            According to the principle you invoked, they are. If a zygote should be treated as a human because it will naturally develop into one, then why shouldn't we treat a child as an adult because they will naturally develop into one?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            NTA

            But it would be wrong to bar the possibility of a child becoming an adult because it's just a child

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >human being
          In this instances it's not a being yet.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then we disagree on where life begins. If you believe it begins after birth, is it okay for me to murder a fetus the day before it's born? If it begins when the baby can survive outside the womb, can I murder it the day before?

            >A child is not an adult
            According to the principle you invoked, they are. If a zygote should be treated as a human because it will naturally develop into one, then why shouldn't we treat a child as an adult because they will naturally develop into one?

            A zygote should be treated as a human in the sense that it should not be murdered. No one would here would argue that the zygote be given all the rights and responsibilities of an adult man. By your line of reason, only adults are human and therefore it is acceptable to murder the child.

            I'd like to restate that the OP argument was that there is no moral difference between eating an unfertilized egg ovum and aborting a human fetus.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Then we disagree on where life begins. If you believe it begins after birth, is it okay for me to murder a fetus the day before it's born? If it begins when the baby can survive outside the womb, can I murder it the day before?
            You misunderstand.
            Life is not what is integral to what I'm talking about. The fetus being both a human and a being are.
            In which case, a zygote and a gamete have human DNA. They are not human beings. They are human, just not human beings. These are what is typically aborted.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then I believe we may share the same opinion on abortion. I believe abortion in the early stages is permissible, but I am against the current mainstream notion of "Even up to the due date, it's her choice."

            >A zygote should be treated as a human in the sense that it should not be murdered
            Why?

            >By your line of reason, only adults are human and therefore it is acceptable to murder the child.
            No. We treat children and adults as legal persons. Even a newborn baby can think to a limited extent, learn, feel, etc.
            A zygote cannot. It is fully dependent on the woman's body.

            Even if we just use your logic that it should be treated as a person at conception, that does not mean it has a legal right to anyone's body.
            You have the right to not have what is essentially a parasite grow inside of you, and down the line cause a number of potential health problems up to death.

            Pregnancies and birth are extremely risky things to go through, even with proper medical care. You can't force people to go through that for something that hasn't even developed a brain yet.

            You and I are never going to see eye-to-eye if you think that your own children growing inside of their mother are parasites.

            The last thing I will say to you is that along your line of reason, the woman in question consents to pregnancy and the "right of the fetus to use her body" when she participates in sexual intercourse.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Then I believe we may share the same opinion on abortion. I believe abortion in the early stages is permissible, but I am against the current mainstream notion of "Even up to the due date, it's her choice."
            Well, good. Although, I don't think I've ever heard of this.
            Even if what you say is true, what does it matter in America at least when Roe v. Wade had been overturned?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            In Vermont, abortion is legal and unrestricted up until the due date. Virginia tried to pass a similar law but it was struck down. There are a sizable number on the left that follow the line of thinking that fetuses are parasites and that until birth, so long as the baby is inside the woman's body, she can do whatever she wants with it. I do not believe these people fully represent the pro-choice movement but the left doesn't seem to have any desire to censure them or tell them that they're going too far. Those are the people who have me identifying as pro-life these days

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you got to a doctor right before your due date, and ask for an abortion, they aren't going to give you one, anywhere.
            They'll induce labor or perform a c section, because there's no reason to kill the baby at that point unless there's severe fetal anomalies that make it unlikely to survive, or the mother's life is in danger.

            These open-ended laws are meant to protect doctors and the mother's descretion in making this type of decision without fear that X pregnancy complication doesn't fall under the state abortion law's exceptions.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Here's a link to a Vermont clinic that performs abortions after 25 weeks:
            https://abortionclinics.org/vermont/late-term-abortion-vermont/

            Vermont's law permits abortion without restriction. This is fact. It may not be common, it may be very rare, but it's perfectly legal, and many on the American left fully support this. Even without abnormalities or danger to the mother, they believe up until the due date, it's her choice.

            People said Roe would never be overturned, and yet here we are. Now they say abortions that late will never happen. I would be careful about saying never

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is just information on the procedure, it does not say when doctors will allow or recommend it.

            As I said, it does happen. And it should for the reasons I listed.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's currently 8 doctors in the US who perform third-trimester abortions, down from 10 a decade or two ago (one of the doctors was murdered by antiabortion activists and one quit after the other guy got murdered). About 2% of abortions in the US are third-trimester. I could not find statistics (when I was looking into this a few weeks ago) on how many are a medical necessity, but anecdotal evidence has it that a significant number are due to medical conditions (such as Downs Syndrome) that can only be tested for at a later point in the pregnancy.

            Note that 8 doctors does not mean "8 nurses" or "8 locations", just that as far as the actual doctor present there's only 8.

          • 5 months ago
            Chud Anon

            >anecdotal evidence has it that a significant number are due to medical conditions (such as Downs Syndrome)
            anecdotal? what?

            Like I said, these do occur because of medical conditions. But it's done because these conditions are life threatening for the mother or the fetus.
            If the fetus lacks a brain and will die a few hours after birth, most people feel the humane thing to do is to abort it so that it does not have to suffer needlessly after birth only to die soon after.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In Vermont, abortion is legal and unrestricted up until the due date. Virginia tried to pass a similar law but it was struck down
            A couple of states out of the 51. You must excuse me if I'm not particularly alarmed by this. Especially given that the latter failed anyway. Which I would have doubted it would succeeded there.
            >There are a sizable number on the left that follow the line of thinking that fetuses are parasites and that until birth, so long as the baby is inside the woman's body, she can do whatever she wants with it
            I'm someone on the left side of things. I can't say I've really heard this much about it at all.
            >I do not believe these people fully represent the pro-choice movement
            Good.
            >but the left doesn't seem to have any desire to censure them or tell them that they're going too far
            Hold on. What?
            >There are a sizable number on the left
            So, which is it? Are they separate or are they apart of it?
            If they're anything like me, it's likely they've never really heard of it.
            But, then again, the left isn't a monolith.
            >Those are the people who have me identifying as pro-life these days
            You shouldn't. You already have a reasonable position on abortion. There's, from what I gathered, no reason to go to the opposite extreme.
            To ensure that I cement the idea of why not to be pro-life. Can you imagine living in a society where abortion is outlawed. Your daughter could be raped by some guy that could have been aborted. In which case your daughter would probably have to carry her pregnancy to term.
            That, or having another Ricky Gervais that could have been aborted.
            It's like, in all of this, pro-lifers fail to recognize that those "babies" that are getting aborted could grow up to become people, and people can be pretty fricking shitty.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but I am against the current mainstream notion of "Even up to the due date, it's her choice."
            That's not the mainstream view. Roe v. Wade protected the right up to viability. The new Ohio constitutional amendment is the same.

            >The last thing I will say to you is that along your line of reason, the woman in question consents to pregnancy and the "right of the fetus to use her body" when she participates in sexual intercourse.
            If you agree with me that early stage abortions are permissible, you are agreeing with me on this point.
            I am not for abortions after fetal viability outside the womb.

            That's the whole reason I framed this around early pregnancy before there's even a fetus.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A zygote should be treated as a human in the sense that it should not be murdered
            Why?

            >By your line of reason, only adults are human and therefore it is acceptable to murder the child.
            No. We treat children and adults as legal persons. Even a newborn baby can think to a limited extent, learn, feel, etc.
            A zygote cannot. It is fully dependent on the woman's body.

            Even if we just use your logic that it should be treated as a person at conception, that does not mean it has a legal right to anyone's body.
            You have the right to not have what is essentially a parasite grow inside of you, and down the line cause a number of potential health problems up to death.

            Pregnancies and birth are extremely risky things to go through, even with proper medical care. You can't force people to go through that for something that hasn't even developed a brain yet.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I will never understand how can someone call a baby a parasyte and then try to make a moral argument

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A zygote should be treated as a human in the sense that it should not be murdered.
            And why should anyone think that it is even possible to "murder" a zygote? You need to give an argument for that. You tried to, and then I showed that your argument has the absurd consequence that a child should be treated as an adult.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No if anything you are confirming his argument. Children have certain limitations that are accounted for, but they aren't considered inhuman because of it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *