Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Lynne is my 180.

Lynne and I had a conversation on Facebook. The reality is, I could be Lynne. I was pretty progressive in high school and conflicted, because I was also drawn to Catholicism.

She never truly angers me. Never. I can see her views of equality thought out step to step would mean there is no difference between homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior, or abortion is a necessary right no matter if it is a health pregnancy or state of development of the fetus.

Am I against equality? No. But the steps to justice are different. I note true difference and address them out of justice. I see homosexual behavior and heterosexual different, because of the procreative factor not because I dislike people who are gay. This does no mean I do not want to address real concerns of gay people, simply they can not conflict with the rights of children.

I see the human rights in the unborn, because they are equally human even if they are need to be within the womb of the mother until full development.


  1. I agree! SO many people that we disagree with we have to recognize that they are often in it for loving reasons, but just not reasons that we can agree and go along with.

  2. OK I admit it, I cried over the Facebook thread. Not out of anger or even at a personal level, just frustrated that post-modernism is so apart of main-stream culture and values that even suggesting anything has structure when it comes to human sexuality to dismissed with laughter.

    I'm not faulting my neighbor, simply we could be talking science and yet when it comes to human sexuality science doesn't apply. The idea that a penis is designed by nature to ejaculate into a vagina was mocked. Or that a mother and father are equally important.

    Again not Lynne's fault here.

    Professor Althouse made note how humans are different, we are very much so. We have free-will, we can make choices outside of instinct.

    quoting a zoologist...

    "I have come to the conclusion that unlike humans, most animals will not breed if they don’t like each other."

    This is how casual sex exists. We reason, not just instinct to choose who will we have sex with. The problem is we can throw away the reason at-will, and contraction makes it easy to throw caution to the wind.

    When we throw caution to the wind, it is like throw sh!t into a fan thought.

    .... I will comment in a bit about the issue of choice, and why in fact we may actually agree in choice, but how do we apply it.

    1. "and contraception makes it easy to throw caution to the wind."

  3. In our Facebook conversation, Lynne mentioned she was childless by choice. I've known this for some time, and in conversation sometime ago I even defended the point people shouldn't 'ask' why a young couple doesn't have children. You don't know their personal situation.

    I have four children, and sadly that is where we stopped.

    Was it a choice? Yes. A choice by reason or default depending at how we looked at the factors. My body can handle another pregnancy, financially we could pull it through. Factors involving work, a medical condition I have that affects my productivity, and the other children calls for no more children.

    No more 'for now'.... But our choice is reasoned and discussed, we actually talk about it every fertile phase. I may even try within our ability to see if any of the factors that make us choose not to conceive can be resolved.

    God's Will means there is a lot of talking and discussing, and a lot of reasoning. Apparently God has a sense of humor with His Will on human beings, by giving us the freedom to make decisions or not to decide at all.

    God's Will may sound like we don't have choice, but in fact it is the post-modernist view point that denies choice.

    "Whatever', 'So what', 'Why do you care?' and 'Does it even matter?' are common responses to current problems we face. Individuals no longer share opinion or insight, rather the dismiss the idea that a problem exists. When whatever choice one chooses doesn't really matter, and to seem to be of no consequence for the individual or the community then ability to make a reasoned decisions is lost.

  4. I get that Lynne is a devout Atheist, but I wish to share something to try to figure out where we can meet?

    From Pope Francis in his recent Encyclical Letter Lumen Fidei (Paragraph 25)

    " In contemporary culture, we often tend to consider the only real truth to be that of technology: truth is what we succeed in building and measuring by our scientific know-how, truth is what works and what makes life easier and more comfortable. Nowadays this appears as the only truth that is certain, the only truth that can be shared, the only truth that can serve as a basis for discussion or for common undertakings. Yet at the other end of the scale we are willing to allow for subjective truths of the individual, which consist in fidelity to his or her deepest convictions, yet these are truths valid only for that individual and not capable of being proposed to others in an effort to serve the common good.... "

    " ...The question of truth is really a question of memory, deep memory, for it deals with something prior to ourselves and can succeed in uniting us in a way that transcends our petty and limited individual consciousness. It is a question about the origin of all that is, in whose light we can glimpse the goal and thus the meaning of our common path."

  5. The need for absolutes in order to proscribe actions is interesting. Unless all hetero couples can have babies, having babies cannot be the foundation of marriage.

  6. The absolute is that we all have a mom and dad.

  7. "The absolute is that we all have a mom and dad."

    Technically untrue. We all came from a mom and a dad. What we have depends on circumstances.

    Also doesn't really address her point.

  8. Just looked up the profile. "her point" should be "his point". I assumed "K T" was short for Katie or something similar. Mea culpa.

  9. "We all came from a mom and a dad. What we have depends on circumstances. "

    Mr. Lynne, And there is nothing wrong to say I'm worried about the circumstances. It is like trying to have one conversation in two universes. Two realities, yet physically there only being one.

    In one news story I can read that a non-biological individual can fight to legal parentage even when the biological parents are known and involved in the child's life, and in another story right below I can read on the devastating effects of divorce on children.

    If circumstances change and matter, then we have to be able to distinguish these circumstances.

    Is there anything wrong with asking 'Who's Yo Daddy?"