What confusing data surrounding abortion tells me
Bad Catholic has a discussion up about women who were denied abortions and the problems with a recent study of them.
My problem with all such studies, on both sides, is that the people being studied are self-selecting, and thus, there's a huge amount of politics and confirmation bias going on.
My problem with all such studies, on both sides, is that the people being studied are self-selecting, and thus, there's a huge amount of politics and confirmation bias going on.
Comments
I'm finally beginning to feel like we have *options* to offer women tempted by abortion.
Well. I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
Either do away with the highly bigoted and discriminatory sane/insane idea to begin with, or apply it equally to all minority thought crime groups.
Which is why, in sexual attraction, the attraction part isn't sinful. It's what the individual *chooses to do* with the attraction that can become sinful- or holy.
In addition, sin/virtue is *far more concrete* than the diagnoses in the DSM-V. It is also more scientific with a lot more observation behind it (of course, the DSM evolved from the 1845 US Army manual on psychological conditions worthy of dishonorable discharge- Catholic sin/virtue has 2000 years worth of theologians observing and arguing about it).
Plus, it's pretty easy to see that the DSM has been edited to be politically correct- after all, homosexuality may no longer be a mental illness, but "Gender confusion disorder" is with the exact same symptom list. Homophobia was added to revision III-TR at the same time. And of course the latest is Oppositional Defiance Disorder- used to institutionalize teenagers and toddlers.
Thus, like I said before- you actually know any sane people? Because I sure don't.
"Sinful" and "holy" are not clinical terms. They only relate to whether a thought, word or deed conforms to religious morals. For example, to the Catholic Church, all sexual activities except for intercourse without contraception between a man and his wife, who he married in a ceremony performed by a Catholic priest, is sinful. But to most people in this world, it is not. To the Church, a man or a woman is practicing holiness by not having sex before marriage. To others, they are not.
I was attempting to explain to you why the world would be a better place that way.
I consider non-Catholics to be very deficient in terms of objective truth.
This sounds interesting. Was Einstein deficient in objective truth? What objective truths do we learn as Catholics that are not known by non-Catholics? The Incarnation? The Trinity?
The incarnation and the trinity are NOT objective truths. But History and the Natural Law is. And those are the very things that for all their worship of science, or what they think is science, modernists of every stripe have divorced themselves from.
Natural Law - philosophical concept not objective truth.
History - some objective truth but not all
History is too broad a topic to say that what people claim to be historical facts are all objective truths. Some see events described in the Bible as historical facts and therefore objective truths.
Events described in the Bible are objective truths, because they were observed and written down. The interpretation of those events is not objective, but the events themselves are.
Cutting oneself off from these two sources of truth is simply subjective instead of objective, and not scientific in the least. It's why I say that scientism worships science instead of DOING science.
Schizophrenia is not caused by ignoring what you present as "Natural Law".
The great flood is an objective truth?
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm
Ok. If that makes Bible stories objective truths to you, that's what faith is all about. I'll take skepticism.
What part of that is hard for you to understand?
Which is it? A localized flood in which the whole human race was not wiped out and for which there would be no need for an Ark filled with animals or the biblical account?
It can't be both. If it was just a localized flood, then the biblical account is just a legend. Legends are not objective truths. I can't believe we are even arguing about this. Don't go all fundamentalist on me.
There is ample genetic evidence for that fact.
Just because YOU want to be as stupid as the Biblical Fundamentalists, taking verses out of context, doesn't mean I have to be.
Despite the slide on the North Side, it was sufficient for there to be a manmade Bridge of the Gods there today.
Tribal oral traditions need not be actual historical facts. And, in fact, in most cases, they are embellished as they are passed on and, in the end, they bear no resemblance to the actual event. There is not one objective truth in the Torah.
People don't lie for the fun of it when there is nothing in it for them to lie. They DO embellish to make a story more memorable however.
I refuse to be a literalist when it comes to the Vedas, why should I be a literalist when it comes to the Bible?
People write fictional stories all the time. It is much more difficult to do research and interview eyewitnesses to write a factual account. It is much easier to sit down and write a story that is not factual than one that is.