Catholics & Abortion (Again)
By Cal ThomasIn recent elections when a high-profile Roman Catholic Democrat seeks high, or higher office, the issue of abortion surfaces. As the pro-choice, non-Catholic Barack Obama makes a play for evangelical voters, conservative Catholics are asking their fellow believers to take seriously the church's teaching on abortion and not cast their vote for Obama and Catholic Joe Biden.
The split in Democratic ranks is along political as well as theological lines. Liberal Catholics claim that government programs advocated by Democrats more accurately reflect the teachings of Jesus about the poor and the weak. More "observant" Catholics, some of whom support anti-poverty government programs, point out that no program can help someone who is not given the right to live. Liberals want Catholics to look beyond abortion. Would they have been comfortable 50 years ago with appeals for Catholics to look beyond the racism of Southern Democratic senators? Probably not. (Read Full Article)
(Click Here to Comment on All RCP Articles)
Join the Discussion | 116 Comments | | | Post Comment |
|
Oct 08, 07:11 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
First, an update on Cal Thomas. For many years he was as "far right" as any columnist could be. A few years back he was involved in something that has since disappeared from sight. After that he moved more to the center and some of his opinions tend to make more sense.
The Pope's comments Thomas writes about are based on an 1869 Vatican "clarification of position," as it would be called today. Nothing new there, however.
Thomas, though, does have a point about the candidates and their position(s) that may run counter to the Church's position(s). Even granting that the Church does NOT technically support or approve political candidates, the Church members are another matter. Assuming that BHO and J-MAC believe other than the way the Church does, that's something the Church WILL address.
Remember, folks, the Catholic Church claims roughly 25% of this planet's ENTIRE population as members, adherents etc. That is a lot of people and a lot of voters. We of course, will never know what instructions The Vatican is giving, but Thomas saying that a close race being decided on these points could very well occur. It'll be interesting to see what happens on this closer to Election Day.
The Pope's comments Thomas writes about are based on an 1869 Vatican "clarification of position," as it would be called today. Nothing new there, however.
Thomas, though, does have a point about the candidates and their position(s) that may run counter to the Church's position(s). Even granting that the Church does NOT technically support or approve political candidates, the Church members are another matter. Assuming that BHO and J-MAC believe other than the way the Church does, that's something the Church WILL address.
Remember, folks, the Catholic Church claims roughly 25% of this planet's ENTIRE population as members, adherents etc. That is a lot of people and a lot of voters. We of course, will never know what instructions The Vatican is giving, but Thomas saying that a close race being decided on these points could very well occur. It'll be interesting to see what happens on this closer to Election Day.
|
|
Oct 08, 12:23 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Anduril Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poultry,
A
> vote for Obama in the face of the opportunity to
> finally bring a just end to an immoral legal
> framework and in light of the horrific, and
> inarguable, numbers of human deaths abortion
> inflicts each year, and the fact the government
> will return to funding abortions in an Obama
> administration, is in fact a vote to collaborate
> with injustice and the culture of death. Opposing
> an injustice on a scale never before seen in human
> history, is not the imposition of a theocracy.
> Rather it is a position based on scientific fact
> and logic, and what is both right and good.
>
> Peace be with you.
>
> Anduril
________________________________________________________________
Thank you Anduril, I am less frightened. In your reply you sound less draconian and more spiritually , as opposed to ideologically, driven. I am concernerd however, that your absolute reliance on the political system when left to its own designs, will somehow rectify the injustices. It absolutely will not! Unfortunately words like "scientific" are bandied about when in fact nobody has sought out a truly scientific consensus on abortion related issiues. What you call science I may (or may not) call dogma. I say this as a scientist by training and it is an issue prevalent for example in the AGW debate.
Changing the law in a vaccum of financial and other remedial supprts will replace one injustice with another, but ultimately will not solve the abortion issue. The issue will only be resolved when society accepts that there will be a price tag of roughly $1700 per capita per year associated with the elimination of abortion.
As the republicans if they are willing to budget that tax and eliminate all other tax cuts to pay for the cost. I think that the "personal responsibility" argument will quickly ensue! The only way it happens is if both Democrats and Republicans, with the vocal support of all church groups, demand it!
And also with you!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poultry,
A
> vote for Obama in the face of the opportunity to
> finally bring a just end to an immoral legal
> framework and in light of the horrific, and
> inarguable, numbers of human deaths abortion
> inflicts each year, and the fact the government
> will return to funding abortions in an Obama
> administration, is in fact a vote to collaborate
> with injustice and the culture of death. Opposing
> an injustice on a scale never before seen in human
> history, is not the imposition of a theocracy.
> Rather it is a position based on scientific fact
> and logic, and what is both right and good.
>
> Peace be with you.
>
> Anduril
________________________________________________________________
Thank you Anduril, I am less frightened. In your reply you sound less draconian and more spiritually , as opposed to ideologically, driven. I am concernerd however, that your absolute reliance on the political system when left to its own designs, will somehow rectify the injustices. It absolutely will not! Unfortunately words like "scientific" are bandied about when in fact nobody has sought out a truly scientific consensus on abortion related issiues. What you call science I may (or may not) call dogma. I say this as a scientist by training and it is an issue prevalent for example in the AGW debate.
Changing the law in a vaccum of financial and other remedial supprts will replace one injustice with another, but ultimately will not solve the abortion issue. The issue will only be resolved when society accepts that there will be a price tag of roughly $1700 per capita per year associated with the elimination of abortion.
As the republicans if they are willing to budget that tax and eliminate all other tax cuts to pay for the cost. I think that the "personal responsibility" argument will quickly ensue! The only way it happens is if both Democrats and Republicans, with the vocal support of all church groups, demand it!
And also with you!
|
|
Oct 08, 10:22 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Poultry,
All law reflects moral judgments both good and bad. Do we help the poor or spend on national defense in a time of war? Do we vote for tax plans which may be more equitable even if it costs jobs? Do we have laws that value life or not?
Of course, law does not stop people from doing bad acts. Free will exists to follow law, or not. Murder still occurs despite the law. But murder is deterred because of the law. And we don't say, "Well, murders are going to happen anyway, so let's just drop it."
Similarly, when laws are unjust, free will exists to disobey them. In Germany in World War II, following the law was immoral. Free will mandated then, as it did during years prior to the Civil War here, a willingness to disobey laws that characterized people as untermenschen or 2/3 of a human.
Finally, I do not condemn people, I merely state facts about the meaning of a person's actions. A vote for Obama in the face of the opportunity to finally bring a just end to an immoral legal framework and in light of the horrific, and inarguable, numbers of human deaths abortion inflicts each year, and the fact the government will return to funding abortions in an Obama administration, is in fact a vote to collaborate with injustice and the culture of death. Opposing an injustice on a scale never before seen in human history, is not the imposition of a theocracy. Rather it is a position based on scientific fact and logic, and what is both right and good.
Peace be with you.
Anduril
All law reflects moral judgments both good and bad. Do we help the poor or spend on national defense in a time of war? Do we vote for tax plans which may be more equitable even if it costs jobs? Do we have laws that value life or not?
Of course, law does not stop people from doing bad acts. Free will exists to follow law, or not. Murder still occurs despite the law. But murder is deterred because of the law. And we don't say, "Well, murders are going to happen anyway, so let's just drop it."
Similarly, when laws are unjust, free will exists to disobey them. In Germany in World War II, following the law was immoral. Free will mandated then, as it did during years prior to the Civil War here, a willingness to disobey laws that characterized people as untermenschen or 2/3 of a human.
Finally, I do not condemn people, I merely state facts about the meaning of a person's actions. A vote for Obama in the face of the opportunity to finally bring a just end to an immoral legal framework and in light of the horrific, and inarguable, numbers of human deaths abortion inflicts each year, and the fact the government will return to funding abortions in an Obama administration, is in fact a vote to collaborate with injustice and the culture of death. Opposing an injustice on a scale never before seen in human history, is not the imposition of a theocracy. Rather it is a position based on scientific fact and logic, and what is both right and good.
Peace be with you.
Anduril
|
|
Oct 08, 09:28 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
urchoice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama supports drilling a hole in the late term
> baby's head and sucking the brains out of the baby
> as it is being shredded while being extracted from
> the womb. And in cases where an abortion is
> botched, Obama supports allowing the baby to die
> outside the womb without medical care because if
> we call the baby human, Roe v Wade is somehow
> compromised. Obama is a real humanitarian right?
He's not a shameless liar like you -- that must count for something.... to repeat, IL law already required, under penalty of law, that any physician assist an infant born alive.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama supports drilling a hole in the late term
> baby's head and sucking the brains out of the baby
> as it is being shredded while being extracted from
> the womb. And in cases where an abortion is
> botched, Obama supports allowing the baby to die
> outside the womb without medical care because if
> we call the baby human, Roe v Wade is somehow
> compromised. Obama is a real humanitarian right?
He's not a shameless liar like you -- that must count for something.... to repeat, IL law already required, under penalty of law, that any physician assist an infant born alive.
|
|
Oct 07, 11:39 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Anduril Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The primary purpose of law is to provide moral
> guide posts.
_________________________________________________________
You have this backwards in most reasonable thinking persons view. You confuse secular society with theocracy. Your statements belie "free will". What you describe as "opportunity" is argued as moot by most Republicans in these threads, yet you (honestly) glorify it. It is the Church itself that has missed what you describe as such a glorious opportunity. Please do not condemn those that would not view your "opportunity" in the same light.
I personally find your statements frightening and I say that in all sincerity, I am not frightened of much but you definately scare me!
-------------------------------------------------------
> The primary purpose of law is to provide moral
> guide posts.
_________________________________________________________
You have this backwards in most reasonable thinking persons view. You confuse secular society with theocracy. Your statements belie "free will". What you describe as "opportunity" is argued as moot by most Republicans in these threads, yet you (honestly) glorify it. It is the Church itself that has missed what you describe as such a glorious opportunity. Please do not condemn those that would not view your "opportunity" in the same light.
I personally find your statements frightening and I say that in all sincerity, I am not frightened of much but you definately scare me!
|
|
Oct 07, 10:55 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
The primary purpose of law is to provide moral guide posts. There are laws against speeding. They don't stop all speeding, they aren't really that strongly enforced, and they do actually help prevent the interstates from becoming the autobahn. I would be content with the law that simply said: All human life is sacred from conception through natural death. As such, we hereby declare that abortion is morally wrong and against the policy of the United States." I would have no punishment mechanism except against those who would perform abortions and thereby profit from the taking of another human life. That should solve the problem for you.
rcfedup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Enforcement mechanism as in how do you enforce the
> law. As in do you create an anti abortion task
> force? Do you have border patrol? Do have
> wiretaps on doctor offices? This would hardly be
> like any other crime as far as enforcement went.
>
> Did you intentionally use an antithetical analysis
> to counter the thesis thus trying to make your
> thesis seem ironic and convey to me you agree with
> me?
>
> I appreciate the response as opposed to the other
> rants.
>
> JCJanko Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > rcfedup Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Since this has boiled into a diatribe board
> as
> > I
> > > knew it would I'd like to hear an outline of
> > what
> > > prolife people plan to do in the event they
> are
> > > successful in having Roe, Casey, etc. (Yes
> Roe
> > is
> > > not the only case on abortion)
> > >
> > > 1. How would a law restricting abortion
> read?
> > >
> > > 2. What enforcement mechanisms would be
> > > implemented?
> > >
> > > 3. What would the punishments be?
> > >
> > > 4. Who would be punished? My understanding
> is
> > > the Catholic Church has consistently called
> the
> > > mother a victim of the evils of abortion and
> > does
> > > not advocate a penal punishment. Although it
> > does
> > > declare her excommunicated and therefore
> unable
> > to
> > > be in full union with the church.
> > >
> > > A question for my fellow Catholics
> > >
> > > Aren't you a little bit disturbed by someone
> > > comparing switching religious affiliation and
> > > party membership?
> >
> >
> > 1. That would be up to the individual states. I
> > believe the "doctor" would be charged with
> murder,
> > and the woman an accessory. Most states would
> not
> > even criminalize the procedure.
> >
> > 2. Odd question. Same as any other crime I
> would
> > assume.
> >
> > 3. Same as the penalty for the crimes I listed
> > above in each respective state.
> >
> > 4. The "doctor" would be charged directly and
> the
> > woman would probably be the lesser penalized,
> but
> > I'm sure some states may not penalize her at
> all.
> >
> > As a Catholic, I see nothing wrong with
> comparing
> > faith to political affiliation. Yes, there are
> > some major differences, but they are both
> choices.
> > I could just as well be a Muslim as I could be
> a
> > Democrat or Republican. I think the biggest
> > difference is that the Church hasn't changed
> very
> > much over 2000 years, but the parties change
> every
> > election cycle. I've changed political
> affiliation
> > about 5 times over the past 8 years, and have
> > voted from Green to Libertarian. I have always
> > been a Catholic.
rcfedup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Enforcement mechanism as in how do you enforce the
> law. As in do you create an anti abortion task
> force? Do you have border patrol? Do have
> wiretaps on doctor offices? This would hardly be
> like any other crime as far as enforcement went.
>
> Did you intentionally use an antithetical analysis
> to counter the thesis thus trying to make your
> thesis seem ironic and convey to me you agree with
> me?
>
> I appreciate the response as opposed to the other
> rants.
>
> JCJanko Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > rcfedup Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Since this has boiled into a diatribe board
> as
> > I
> > > knew it would I'd like to hear an outline of
> > what
> > > prolife people plan to do in the event they
> are
> > > successful in having Roe, Casey, etc. (Yes
> Roe
> > is
> > > not the only case on abortion)
> > >
> > > 1. How would a law restricting abortion
> read?
> > >
> > > 2. What enforcement mechanisms would be
> > > implemented?
> > >
> > > 3. What would the punishments be?
> > >
> > > 4. Who would be punished? My understanding
> is
> > > the Catholic Church has consistently called
> the
> > > mother a victim of the evils of abortion and
> > does
> > > not advocate a penal punishment. Although it
> > does
> > > declare her excommunicated and therefore
> unable
> > to
> > > be in full union with the church.
> > >
> > > A question for my fellow Catholics
> > >
> > > Aren't you a little bit disturbed by someone
> > > comparing switching religious affiliation and
> > > party membership?
> >
> >
> > 1. That would be up to the individual states. I
> > believe the "doctor" would be charged with
> murder,
> > and the woman an accessory. Most states would
> not
> > even criminalize the procedure.
> >
> > 2. Odd question. Same as any other crime I
> would
> > assume.
> >
> > 3. Same as the penalty for the crimes I listed
> > above in each respective state.
> >
> > 4. The "doctor" would be charged directly and
> the
> > woman would probably be the lesser penalized,
> but
> > I'm sure some states may not penalize her at
> all.
> >
> > As a Catholic, I see nothing wrong with
> comparing
> > faith to political affiliation. Yes, there are
> > some major differences, but they are both
> choices.
> > I could just as well be a Muslim as I could be
> a
> > Democrat or Republican. I think the biggest
> > difference is that the Church hasn't changed
> very
> > much over 2000 years, but the parties change
> every
> > election cycle. I've changed political
> affiliation
> > about 5 times over the past 8 years, and have
> > voted from Green to Libertarian. I have always
> > been a Catholic.
|
|
Oct 07, 10:46 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Pealie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is 2008. Does any one still seriously
> believe that anyone on Earth is infallible,
> including the Pope?
>
> And if life begins at conception, then why do
> 60-80% of "human lives" never even implant
> themselves in the uterus, for completely natural
> reasons? Every time a sexually-active woman has
> her period, should we mourn it like a death just
> in case a "human life" was discharged? The answer
> is: no, human life doesn't begin at conception.
> And certainly not just because the Pope says so.
> God didn't so poorly create the universe.
Actually, those lives matter too. Ask anyone who lost a son or daughter to a miscarriage. I know my unborn son who survived in utero for a few weeks is alive today and just not with us. God didn't poorly create the universe. That person, as all do, mattered.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is 2008. Does any one still seriously
> believe that anyone on Earth is infallible,
> including the Pope?
>
> And if life begins at conception, then why do
> 60-80% of "human lives" never even implant
> themselves in the uterus, for completely natural
> reasons? Every time a sexually-active woman has
> her period, should we mourn it like a death just
> in case a "human life" was discharged? The answer
> is: no, human life doesn't begin at conception.
> And certainly not just because the Pope says so.
> God didn't so poorly create the universe.
Actually, those lives matter too. Ask anyone who lost a son or daughter to a miscarriage. I know my unborn son who survived in utero for a few weeks is alive today and just not with us. God didn't poorly create the universe. That person, as all do, mattered.
|
|
Oct 07, 10:41 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Joshua1235 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> let's not let iron-age religions dictate our
> thinking - I wish these important issues could be
> discussed without this superstitious nonsense.
Good. If science is our guide we all know that the unique genetic structure of your human personhood began when you were conceived. So I guess you are Pro-Life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> let's not let iron-age religions dictate our
> thinking - I wish these important issues could be
> discussed without this superstitious nonsense.
Good. If science is our guide we all know that the unique genetic structure of your human personhood began when you were conceived. So I guess you are Pro-Life.
|
|
Oct 07, 10:38 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Final days of the Nazi Republican Reich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As the days dwindle down with the trailer trash
> hopes, the behavioral patterns of Republicans will
> continue to resemble those of early 1945 Nazis.
>
> Fanaticism, Insanity, Futile hopes,
> desperation, suicide and madness will continue to
> grip the last dedicated adherents to Big
> Government Liberal Republicanism. Many of the
> surviving wiser veterans will desert their posts
> or surrender in the face of overwheming Allied
> superiority.
> The nutjob bunker leaders of the GOP will march
> out their version of the Hitler Youth, to phone
> banks and undermanned rallies. Other nutjob
> conservatives will search in vain for secret
> political talking points much as Nazi Scientists
> frantically sought for wonder weapons that could
> turn the war.
>
> Alas! Alas!
Gee, this looks like an unitelligent post.
-------------------------------------------------------
> As the days dwindle down with the trailer trash
> hopes, the behavioral patterns of Republicans will
> continue to resemble those of early 1945 Nazis.
>
> Fanaticism, Insanity, Futile hopes,
> desperation, suicide and madness will continue to
> grip the last dedicated adherents to Big
> Government Liberal Republicanism. Many of the
> surviving wiser veterans will desert their posts
> or surrender in the face of overwheming Allied
> superiority.
> The nutjob bunker leaders of the GOP will march
> out their version of the Hitler Youth, to phone
> banks and undermanned rallies. Other nutjob
> conservatives will search in vain for secret
> political talking points much as Nazi Scientists
> frantically sought for wonder weapons that could
> turn the war.
>
> Alas! Alas!
Gee, this looks like an unitelligent post.
|
|
Oct 07, 10:33 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Mark, Cleveland, OH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Catholic Church's position on voting is
> clear:
>
> 1) Catholics have an obligation to participate in
> their democracy in an effort to create a more just
> and equitable society;
>
> 2) The Catholic Church does not endorse one
> candidate or party;
>
> 3) The Catholic Church considers abortion a
> fundamental issue;
>
> 4) The Catholic Church also speaks out against
> preemptive war; environmental destruction;
> failure to provide for the needs of the poor;
> etc.
>
> 5) It is permissible to vote for a pro-choice
> candidate, PROVIDED, you are not voting for the
> candidate because of that position, but IN SPITE
> of that position.
>
> In the 35 years since Roe v. Wade, Republicans
> have controlled the executive branch for 25 of
> them. The number of abortions actually decreased
> under "pro-choice" Bill Clinton, but increased
> under "pro-life" George Bush.
>
> Having worked with this issue for the past decade,
> it is clear that abortion will not be legislated
> out of existence. Scrapping Roe v. Wade will
> only return things to the 1973 status quo, in
> which legalized abortion existed in 3/4 of the
> nation. The only way to protect unborn lives
> is to address the root causes of abortion:
> poverty, lack of access to family planning
> service, economic and social barriers to adoption,
> and education.
>
> Interestingly enough, the Democratic Party adopted
> a platform plank on "reducing the number of
> abortions" at this convention. The GOP actually
> removed that language.
>
> This year, there will be many good, faithful
> Catholics who are voting for Barack Obama BECAUSE
> his positions are more in line with Church
> teaching on many of the issues. We'll also keep
> fighting abortion in the way that is ultimately
> more effective.
>
> For a prominent Catholic view on this, read the
> National Catholic Register's piece on the issue:
> [ncronline3.org]
Actually, a vote for Obama at this critical juncture in the history of abortion would be an immoral choice by any Catholic standard.
For the first time since Roe, there is an opportunity to obtain a Pro-Life majority on the Supreme Court. We know, from Senator Biden at the last debate, that they will have a pro-abortion litmus test when appointing Supreme Court justices. As one Arch Bishop pointed out only last week from the Vatican, the Democratic party risks becoming the party of death.
If one is committed to Social Justice as I am, you would recognize that the greatest injustice of our time is the killing of the unborn. Did you know that there are 1.2 to 1.5 million abortions each year since Roe? That is approximately 3,287 killed daily. Each and every day is 9/11 for the unborn.
Did you know that 90% of all children with Down Syndrome are destroyed each year? What do you think about this type of eugenic warfare against the unborn.
Did you know that Senator Obama in his time in Illinois failed to oppose the practice of giving medical treatment to babies born alive after a failed abortion?
Did you know that there have been over 40 million Americans put to death since Roe?
Did you know that 40 million people are aborted worldwide each year?
Not even Nazi's can kill that fast. It makes the problems of polar bears on ice flows (whose population has actually increased in recent years) seem ridiculously trivial by comparison. Indeed the problems of Iraq and the economy seem small when you consider the equivalent of every man woman and child in a
Did you know that Naral and Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups load the Democratic candidates up with this literal blood money?
Did you know Barack Obama will use your tax dollars to perform abortions?
Barack Obama has promised to undo some of the good the Bush Administration has accomplished. In his administration, for the first time, legislation limiting the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion was sustained in the Supreme Court. Barrack Obama will bring the practice of partially delivering babies and then chopping them up, which courts and Congress have said cause fetal pain. Only an uncivilized person could take money from such groups. Barrack Obama is such a man.
Any Catholic that votes for Obama after looking at these statistics, when we are on the verge of making a real breakthrough is a collaborator in the working of evil. Do you think Jesus would tolerate abortion? Jesus had a strong view about protecting and receiving children. God Himself said the following: "whoever receives one such little child for my sake receives me." Go take a look at a few ultra sound pictures before you vote for Barrack Obama on November 4 and tell me, when does life begin? It's not above a Catholic's pay grade to answer that question.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Catholic Church's position on voting is
> clear:
>
> 1) Catholics have an obligation to participate in
> their democracy in an effort to create a more just
> and equitable society;
>
> 2) The Catholic Church does not endorse one
> candidate or party;
>
> 3) The Catholic Church considers abortion a
> fundamental issue;
>
> 4) The Catholic Church also speaks out against
> preemptive war; environmental destruction;
> failure to provide for the needs of the poor;
> etc.
>
> 5) It is permissible to vote for a pro-choice
> candidate, PROVIDED, you are not voting for the
> candidate because of that position, but IN SPITE
> of that position.
>
> In the 35 years since Roe v. Wade, Republicans
> have controlled the executive branch for 25 of
> them. The number of abortions actually decreased
> under "pro-choice" Bill Clinton, but increased
> under "pro-life" George Bush.
>
> Having worked with this issue for the past decade,
> it is clear that abortion will not be legislated
> out of existence. Scrapping Roe v. Wade will
> only return things to the 1973 status quo, in
> which legalized abortion existed in 3/4 of the
> nation. The only way to protect unborn lives
> is to address the root causes of abortion:
> poverty, lack of access to family planning
> service, economic and social barriers to adoption,
> and education.
>
> Interestingly enough, the Democratic Party adopted
> a platform plank on "reducing the number of
> abortions" at this convention. The GOP actually
> removed that language.
>
> This year, there will be many good, faithful
> Catholics who are voting for Barack Obama BECAUSE
> his positions are more in line with Church
> teaching on many of the issues. We'll also keep
> fighting abortion in the way that is ultimately
> more effective.
>
> For a prominent Catholic view on this, read the
> National Catholic Register's piece on the issue:
> [ncronline3.org]
Actually, a vote for Obama at this critical juncture in the history of abortion would be an immoral choice by any Catholic standard.
For the first time since Roe, there is an opportunity to obtain a Pro-Life majority on the Supreme Court. We know, from Senator Biden at the last debate, that they will have a pro-abortion litmus test when appointing Supreme Court justices. As one Arch Bishop pointed out only last week from the Vatican, the Democratic party risks becoming the party of death.
If one is committed to Social Justice as I am, you would recognize that the greatest injustice of our time is the killing of the unborn. Did you know that there are 1.2 to 1.5 million abortions each year since Roe? That is approximately 3,287 killed daily. Each and every day is 9/11 for the unborn.
Did you know that 90% of all children with Down Syndrome are destroyed each year? What do you think about this type of eugenic warfare against the unborn.
Did you know that Senator Obama in his time in Illinois failed to oppose the practice of giving medical treatment to babies born alive after a failed abortion?
Did you know that there have been over 40 million Americans put to death since Roe?
Did you know that 40 million people are aborted worldwide each year?
Not even Nazi's can kill that fast. It makes the problems of polar bears on ice flows (whose population has actually increased in recent years) seem ridiculously trivial by comparison. Indeed the problems of Iraq and the economy seem small when you consider the equivalent of every man woman and child in a
Did you know that Naral and Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups load the Democratic candidates up with this literal blood money?
Did you know Barack Obama will use your tax dollars to perform abortions?
Barack Obama has promised to undo some of the good the Bush Administration has accomplished. In his administration, for the first time, legislation limiting the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion was sustained in the Supreme Court. Barrack Obama will bring the practice of partially delivering babies and then chopping them up, which courts and Congress have said cause fetal pain. Only an uncivilized person could take money from such groups. Barrack Obama is such a man.
Any Catholic that votes for Obama after looking at these statistics, when we are on the verge of making a real breakthrough is a collaborator in the working of evil. Do you think Jesus would tolerate abortion? Jesus had a strong view about protecting and receiving children. God Himself said the following: "whoever receives one such little child for my sake receives me." Go take a look at a few ultra sound pictures before you vote for Barrack Obama on November 4 and tell me, when does life begin? It's not above a Catholic's pay grade to answer that question.
|
|
Oct 07, 07:02 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
As the days dwindle down with the trailer trash hopes, the behavioral patterns of Republicans will continue to resemble those of early 1945 Nazis.
Fanaticism, Insanity, Futile hopes, desperation, suicide and madness will continue to grip the last dedicated adherents to Big Government Liberal Republicanism. Many of the surviving wiser veterans will desert their posts or surrender in the face of overwheming Allied superiority.
The nutjob bunker leaders of the GOP will march out their version of the Hitler Youth, to phone banks and undermanned rallies. Other nutjob conservatives will search in vain for secret political talking points much as Nazi Scientists frantically sought for wonder weapons that could turn the war.
Alas! Alas!
Fanaticism, Insanity, Futile hopes, desperation, suicide and madness will continue to grip the last dedicated adherents to Big Government Liberal Republicanism. Many of the surviving wiser veterans will desert their posts or surrender in the face of overwheming Allied superiority.
The nutjob bunker leaders of the GOP will march out their version of the Hitler Youth, to phone banks and undermanned rallies. Other nutjob conservatives will search in vain for secret political talking points much as Nazi Scientists frantically sought for wonder weapons that could turn the war.
Alas! Alas!
|
|
Oct 07, 05:33 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Thanks poultry for showing me that there is hope for you. I believe you are a good person and try to do what is right. I disagree with your politics but I am glad to know that you are not just one of the Obama kool-aid drinkers.
poultry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bottom line is this:
> If the Church wishes to bind me to its doctrine
> through Papal encyclicals as a prerequisite to my
> Catholicism then fine, I can accept or reject that
> edict and either stay within the church or leave
> it. My priest will tell me when I Confess,
> whether I am absolved or whether I am
> excommunicado. What is obvious however, is that
> if the Church wishes to end abortion, it must do
> so by suasion within its confines and not through
> political coersion. When the Church enters the
> realm of politics, which applies binding laws unto
> secular society, it does so without any legal
> jurisdiction. If the Church wishes to endorse a
> political Party, it should do so with its full
> weight behind the legislation that ensues. I
> doubt that many Republicans would be willing to
> assume the financial AND moral burdens that the
> Church would impose upon that endorsement. In
> short, if the Church wants to "talk the talk" it
> must "walk the walk"!
> I for one am prepared to accept the scientifically
> sound definition of human life and a definition of
> "murder" that would be applicable to secular law.
> If that is theologically defined as conception,
> then I am fine with that too. It is and should
> be however, a much tougher sell to anybody else.
> I have railed for many years at a Church which
> dines with politicians claiming to be Catholic who
> openly defy even the most basic of Catholic
> doctrines. If the Church feels so strongly, it
> should excommunicate (officially) all politico's
> openly and publicly who contravene their doctrine
> and profess their Catholicism simultaneously.
> They have that power, just not the inclination.
> Excuse me and millions like me who are,
> understandably, confused. I obey the Church's
> teachings so why don't they? I don't think that
> not believing the church on some things is a
> "sin", but I may once more be wrong!
poultry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bottom line is this:
> If the Church wishes to bind me to its doctrine
> through Papal encyclicals as a prerequisite to my
> Catholicism then fine, I can accept or reject that
> edict and either stay within the church or leave
> it. My priest will tell me when I Confess,
> whether I am absolved or whether I am
> excommunicado. What is obvious however, is that
> if the Church wishes to end abortion, it must do
> so by suasion within its confines and not through
> political coersion. When the Church enters the
> realm of politics, which applies binding laws unto
> secular society, it does so without any legal
> jurisdiction. If the Church wishes to endorse a
> political Party, it should do so with its full
> weight behind the legislation that ensues. I
> doubt that many Republicans would be willing to
> assume the financial AND moral burdens that the
> Church would impose upon that endorsement. In
> short, if the Church wants to "talk the talk" it
> must "walk the walk"!
> I for one am prepared to accept the scientifically
> sound definition of human life and a definition of
> "murder" that would be applicable to secular law.
> If that is theologically defined as conception,
> then I am fine with that too. It is and should
> be however, a much tougher sell to anybody else.
> I have railed for many years at a Church which
> dines with politicians claiming to be Catholic who
> openly defy even the most basic of Catholic
> doctrines. If the Church feels so strongly, it
> should excommunicate (officially) all politico's
> openly and publicly who contravene their doctrine
> and profess their Catholicism simultaneously.
> They have that power, just not the inclination.
> Excuse me and millions like me who are,
> understandably, confused. I obey the Church's
> teachings so why don't they? I don't think that
> not believing the church on some things is a
> "sin", but I may once more be wrong!
|
|
Oct 07, 05:28 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
The bottom line is this:
If the Church wishes to bind me to its doctrine through Papal encyclicals as a prerequisite to my Catholicism then fine, I can accept or reject that edict and either stay within the church or leave it. My priest will tell me when I Confess, whether I am absolved or whether I am excommunicado. What is obvious however, is that if the Church wishes to end abortion, it must do so by suasion within its confines and not through political coersion. When the Church enters the realm of politics, which applies binding laws unto secular society, it does so without any legal jurisdiction. If the Church wishes to endorse a political Party, it should do so with its full weight behind the legislation that ensues. I doubt that many Republicans would be willing to assume the financial AND moral burdens that the Church would impose upon that endorsement. In short, if the Church wants to "talk the talk" it must "walk the walk"!
I for one am prepared to accept the scientifically sound definition of human life and a definition of "murder" that would be applicable to secular law. If that is theologically defined as conception, then I am fine with that too. It is and should be however, a much tougher sell to anybody else. I have railed for many years at a Church which dines with politicians claiming to be Catholic who openly defy even the most basic of Catholic doctrines. If the Church feels so strongly, it should excommunicate (officially) all politico's openly and publicly who contravene their doctrine and profess their Catholicism simultaneously. They have that power, just not the inclination. Excuse me and millions like me who are, understandably, confused. I obey the Church's teachings so why don't they? I don't think that not believing the church on some things is a "sin", but I may once more be wrong!
If the Church wishes to bind me to its doctrine through Papal encyclicals as a prerequisite to my Catholicism then fine, I can accept or reject that edict and either stay within the church or leave it. My priest will tell me when I Confess, whether I am absolved or whether I am excommunicado. What is obvious however, is that if the Church wishes to end abortion, it must do so by suasion within its confines and not through political coersion. When the Church enters the realm of politics, which applies binding laws unto secular society, it does so without any legal jurisdiction. If the Church wishes to endorse a political Party, it should do so with its full weight behind the legislation that ensues. I doubt that many Republicans would be willing to assume the financial AND moral burdens that the Church would impose upon that endorsement. In short, if the Church wants to "talk the talk" it must "walk the walk"!
I for one am prepared to accept the scientifically sound definition of human life and a definition of "murder" that would be applicable to secular law. If that is theologically defined as conception, then I am fine with that too. It is and should be however, a much tougher sell to anybody else. I have railed for many years at a Church which dines with politicians claiming to be Catholic who openly defy even the most basic of Catholic doctrines. If the Church feels so strongly, it should excommunicate (officially) all politico's openly and publicly who contravene their doctrine and profess their Catholicism simultaneously. They have that power, just not the inclination. Excuse me and millions like me who are, understandably, confused. I obey the Church's teachings so why don't they? I don't think that not believing the church on some things is a "sin", but I may once more be wrong!
|
|
Oct 07, 05:23 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Obama supports drilling a hole in the late term baby's head and sucking the brains out of the baby as it is being shredded while being extracted from the womb. And in cases where an abortion is botched, Obama supports allowing the baby to die outside the womb without medical care because if we call the baby human, Roe v Wade is somehow compromised. Obama is a real humanitarian right?
cassamandra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> catholic career women for palin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > While i am not pro choice i think that even for
> my
> > pro choice friends its hard to stomach a
> candidate
> > who is so gung ho for abortion thathe would
> > support partial birth which the AMA has said
> there
> > is no medical need for and a candidate who
> would
> > allow babies who survive abortion to rot until
> > death in bottles on shelves.......
>
> Yes, it would be. Lucky that nobody running for
> office has done so, then, wouldn't you say?
cassamandra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> catholic career women for palin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > While i am not pro choice i think that even for
> my
> > pro choice friends its hard to stomach a
> candidate
> > who is so gung ho for abortion thathe would
> > support partial birth which the AMA has said
> there
> > is no medical need for and a candidate who
> would
> > allow babies who survive abortion to rot until
> > death in bottles on shelves.......
>
> Yes, it would be. Lucky that nobody running for
> office has done so, then, wouldn't you say?
|
|
Oct 07, 05:05 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
AustinG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cassamandra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > But people don't favor abortion, they favor the
> > right to chose an abortion. So pro-choice is
> > correct, even if
> >
> pro-reproductive-choice-including-the-possibility-
>
> > of-abortion-within-a-legal-framework would be
> even
> > more correct. Just a bit cumbersome...
> >
> If you didn't favor abortion then the right to
> choose one wouldn't matter.
Nonsense. I very much do not favor folks spitting on the street, yet I think we're fine not criminalizing it. I very much do not favor sleeping with your best friend's girlfriend, and yet I don't think it should be criminalized. You can deplore every single abortion with great sincerity, and still think women should have the choice to abort.
You have all the
> reproductive choices before getting pregnant.
> There is a narrow window each month, or cycle if
> you prefer, in which a women can become pregnant.
> So she can choose to have unprotected sex during
> that time and there is then a chance she will get
> pregnant. If wants to choose to have sex during
> that time frame then she or man she is with can
> choose to use birth control. If the man doesn't
> want to wear a condom then she can choose to not
> have sex with him during that time frame or she
> can choose another birth control option.
I grew up in a Catholic town. About half the kids had Knaus or Ogino as their middle names. Please don't give me this bunch of ill-informed crap.
>
> Pro-choice is not correct. You have all the
> choices without abortion being one of them. That
> is why that view should be correctly labeled
> pro-abortion. Choice and abortion aren't the same
> things and it is an effort to make what is and
> seems dreadful to support more palatable by
> renaming it.
You can twist yourself into as many pretzels as you like -- the position that abortion is deplorable and should yet be a legal choice is a consistent one.
>
> >
> > You mean to say she often has to choice whether
> to
> > have sex or not. The choice to have sex is not
> > automatically the choice to get pregnant, you
> > know?
>
> Of course, but having sex should be done
> responsibly because of disease and the possibility
> that is has in creating another life. A woman can
> have sex and not expect to get pregnant most of
> the time. Birth control of one form or another is
> needed during the time she is ovulating and right
> before that or she has a chance of getting
> pregnant. You know this, but are trying to make
> it look like I am saying women can just abstain
> from sex, which is true by the way, but it isn't
> necessary.
How quickly they show their true colors: your ideology is about controlling women's sexuality. It has nothing to do with fetuses of any age.
> > >
> > > It is science and not religion that tells us
> > that
> > > a unique life is created at conception.
> >
> > So you oppose the pill and the IUD? Neither of
> > them prevent conception, as I assume you know.
>
> That is a factual statement that doesn't mean I
> support or oppose anything.
"what is and seems dreadful to support" -- give me a break.
What is commonly
> referred to as THE PILL does prevent conception.
> It makes the walls of the egg much more difficult
> for the sperm to breakthrough and then fertilize.
Um, no. Combination pills do not prevent ovulation reliably, and progestin pills hardly prevent it at all, and neither one thickens "the walls of the egg." They do thicken the mucus of the cervix, making it harder for sperm to get through. But not impossible. What they do do is prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.
> You might have it confused with the other pill
> that can be taken after the fact which prevents
> the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
Isn't it funny that the people who tell women whom to @#$%& when and how tend to be the ones who know the least about women's bodies?
> I have forgotten what IUD stands for and don't
> wish to look it up right now, but it isn't that
> important to the context here.
IUD=intra-uterine device. Prevents implantation. And as your argument hinges on "life begins at conception," it's very important indeed.
The fact that
> science tells us that a human life is created at
> conception was the point that I was making in the
> first place. You don't dispute this, but try to
> imply that it means I oppose things and then
> misrepresent what is known as THE PILL for decades
> does. That means you are being deceptive, are
> just ill informed, or both.
Once again, you give a decent imitation of somebody who knows things (remember your claims about polling demographic groups?) but are, in fact, deplorably ignorant about the very basics.
-------------------------------------------------------
> cassamandra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > But people don't favor abortion, they favor the
> > right to chose an abortion. So pro-choice is
> > correct, even if
> >
> pro-reproductive-choice-including-the-possibility-
>
> > of-abortion-within-a-legal-framework would be
> even
> > more correct. Just a bit cumbersome...
> >
> If you didn't favor abortion then the right to
> choose one wouldn't matter.
Nonsense. I very much do not favor folks spitting on the street, yet I think we're fine not criminalizing it. I very much do not favor sleeping with your best friend's girlfriend, and yet I don't think it should be criminalized. You can deplore every single abortion with great sincerity, and still think women should have the choice to abort.
You have all the
> reproductive choices before getting pregnant.
> There is a narrow window each month, or cycle if
> you prefer, in which a women can become pregnant.
> So she can choose to have unprotected sex during
> that time and there is then a chance she will get
> pregnant. If wants to choose to have sex during
> that time frame then she or man she is with can
> choose to use birth control. If the man doesn't
> want to wear a condom then she can choose to not
> have sex with him during that time frame or she
> can choose another birth control option.
I grew up in a Catholic town. About half the kids had Knaus or Ogino as their middle names. Please don't give me this bunch of ill-informed crap.
>
> Pro-choice is not correct. You have all the
> choices without abortion being one of them. That
> is why that view should be correctly labeled
> pro-abortion. Choice and abortion aren't the same
> things and it is an effort to make what is and
> seems dreadful to support more palatable by
> renaming it.
You can twist yourself into as many pretzels as you like -- the position that abortion is deplorable and should yet be a legal choice is a consistent one.
>
> >
> > You mean to say she often has to choice whether
> to
> > have sex or not. The choice to have sex is not
> > automatically the choice to get pregnant, you
> > know?
>
> Of course, but having sex should be done
> responsibly because of disease and the possibility
> that is has in creating another life. A woman can
> have sex and not expect to get pregnant most of
> the time. Birth control of one form or another is
> needed during the time she is ovulating and right
> before that or she has a chance of getting
> pregnant. You know this, but are trying to make
> it look like I am saying women can just abstain
> from sex, which is true by the way, but it isn't
> necessary.
How quickly they show their true colors: your ideology is about controlling women's sexuality. It has nothing to do with fetuses of any age.
> > >
> > > It is science and not religion that tells us
> > that
> > > a unique life is created at conception.
> >
> > So you oppose the pill and the IUD? Neither of
> > them prevent conception, as I assume you know.
>
> That is a factual statement that doesn't mean I
> support or oppose anything.
"what is and seems dreadful to support" -- give me a break.
What is commonly
> referred to as THE PILL does prevent conception.
> It makes the walls of the egg much more difficult
> for the sperm to breakthrough and then fertilize.
Um, no. Combination pills do not prevent ovulation reliably, and progestin pills hardly prevent it at all, and neither one thickens "the walls of the egg." They do thicken the mucus of the cervix, making it harder for sperm to get through. But not impossible. What they do do is prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.
> You might have it confused with the other pill
> that can be taken after the fact which prevents
> the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
Isn't it funny that the people who tell women whom to @#$%& when and how tend to be the ones who know the least about women's bodies?
> I have forgotten what IUD stands for and don't
> wish to look it up right now, but it isn't that
> important to the context here.
IUD=intra-uterine device. Prevents implantation. And as your argument hinges on "life begins at conception," it's very important indeed.
The fact that
> science tells us that a human life is created at
> conception was the point that I was making in the
> first place. You don't dispute this, but try to
> imply that it means I oppose things and then
> misrepresent what is known as THE PILL for decades
> does. That means you are being deceptive, are
> just ill informed, or both.
Once again, you give a decent imitation of somebody who knows things (remember your claims about polling demographic groups?) but are, in fact, deplorably ignorant about the very basics.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:52 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
catholic career women for palin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While i am not pro choice i think that even for my
> pro choice friends its hard to stomach a candidate
> who is so gung ho for abortion thathe would
> support partial birth which the AMA has said there
> is no medical need for and a candidate who would
> allow babies who survive abortion to rot until
> death in bottles on shelves.......
Yes, it would be. Lucky that nobody running for office has done so, then, wouldn't you say?
-------------------------------------------------------
> While i am not pro choice i think that even for my
> pro choice friends its hard to stomach a candidate
> who is so gung ho for abortion thathe would
> support partial birth which the AMA has said there
> is no medical need for and a candidate who would
> allow babies who survive abortion to rot until
> death in bottles on shelves.......
Yes, it would be. Lucky that nobody running for office has done so, then, wouldn't you say?
|
|
Oct 07, 04:49 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
let's not let iron-age religions dictate our thinking - I wish these important issues could be discussed without this superstitious nonsense.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:39 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Mentok Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
will you please point me to
> one case in the history of human evolution where
> the result of an human egg and human sperm have
> developed into something other than human?
_____________________________________________
This becomes quickly a semantical argument. What is a human? It is the soul of a person that makes him/her human. Is a naturally aborted fetus, at say 4 days, human? Are any agglomeration of human cells then human as long as cellular mitosis is occuring? After death, is a corpse still human? After death does mitosis still occur beyond brain death of some organs?
I am not trying to be a wise a--, but science has not placed these issues into a context for the definition of "human life". You may believe you know and I may even agree, but it is not a sciebtific belief. If brain death marks the end of "human life" should not brain development mark the start of "human life"?
I do not agree with abortion at all. I am however not prepared to accept a theological definition of life and the "natural order" of things from theologians.
-------------------------------------------------------
will you please point me to
> one case in the history of human evolution where
> the result of an human egg and human sperm have
> developed into something other than human?
_____________________________________________
This becomes quickly a semantical argument. What is a human? It is the soul of a person that makes him/her human. Is a naturally aborted fetus, at say 4 days, human? Are any agglomeration of human cells then human as long as cellular mitosis is occuring? After death, is a corpse still human? After death does mitosis still occur beyond brain death of some organs?
I am not trying to be a wise a--, but science has not placed these issues into a context for the definition of "human life". You may believe you know and I may even agree, but it is not a sciebtific belief. If brain death marks the end of "human life" should not brain development mark the start of "human life"?
I do not agree with abortion at all. I am however not prepared to accept a theological definition of life and the "natural order" of things from theologians.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:10 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
While i am not pro choice i think that even for my pro choice friends its hard to stomach a candidate who is so gung ho for abortion thathe would support partial birth which the AMA has said there is no medical need for and a candidate who would allow babies who survive abortion to rot until death in bottles on shelves........reemmeber there has always been a medical excuse if the mother's life is indnager to have an abortion -even my mom in the 60's had a friend a catholic in a catholic hospital was offered that -partial birth abortion si just for gung ho abortionist who wnat to allow a woman to kill a baby in the 7th month when it coudl survive outside the womb -3 of my sisters and brothers were born in the 7 month and are all healthy
|
|
Oct 07, 03:48 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I see that this discussion has not progressed at all. I will re-iterate my previous post because everyone is diverging from the point:
I said:
> If you want to gain the
> "Catholic vote" it means getting these people on
> board, not just the Catholics who are against
> reducing Abortions if it does not officially
> criminalize the act of abortion. To call these
> people Hypocrites and not "True Catholics" will
> most certainly NOT get their vote
You can argue all you want about whether or not people who believe this or that are officially allowed to call themselves Catholic, but the point is, that argument has no relevance. If you say that these people are not true Catholics, than you can't count their vote as part of the Catholic vote, and the Catholic vote becomes a rather inconsequential piece of the big picture, since a large percentage of us do not agree with the church's teaching, and most of the other Catholics that I know, including some priests, do not agree with the infallibility of the Pope.
Do you want our vote or not?
I said:
> If you want to gain the
> "Catholic vote" it means getting these people on
> board, not just the Catholics who are against
> reducing Abortions if it does not officially
> criminalize the act of abortion. To call these
> people Hypocrites and not "True Catholics" will
> most certainly NOT get their vote
You can argue all you want about whether or not people who believe this or that are officially allowed to call themselves Catholic, but the point is, that argument has no relevance. If you say that these people are not true Catholics, than you can't count their vote as part of the Catholic vote, and the Catholic vote becomes a rather inconsequential piece of the big picture, since a large percentage of us do not agree with the church's teaching, and most of the other Catholics that I know, including some priests, do not agree with the infallibility of the Pope.
Do you want our vote or not?
|
|
Oct 07, 03:41 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Sog, keep up the good fight. I have enjoyed your posts.
To those that would say that human life doesn't begin at conception: will you please point me to one case in the history of human evolution where the result of an human egg and human sperm have developed into something other than human?
To those that would say that human life doesn't begin at conception: will you please point me to one case in the history of human evolution where the result of an human egg and human sperm have developed into something other than human?
|
|
Oct 07, 03:29 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Cal,
While not a Catholic, as I am by both birth and confirmed choice, you captured our teachings quite succinctly. Many of the previous posts indicate a lack of respect for my faith. So be it; I am not afraid.
Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Biden have morphed into what I call "convenient catholicism". They cannot claim they do not know where the Church stands on the issues of life and marriage. Pope Benedict has bright lined this for the faithful.
They are welcome to believe what they wish; this is a free country. If they have decided to support abortion and gay marriage, they certainly may. But they can't call themselves Catholic at the same time.
While not a Catholic, as I am by both birth and confirmed choice, you captured our teachings quite succinctly. Many of the previous posts indicate a lack of respect for my faith. So be it; I am not afraid.
Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Biden have morphed into what I call "convenient catholicism". They cannot claim they do not know where the Church stands on the issues of life and marriage. Pope Benedict has bright lined this for the faithful.
They are welcome to believe what they wish; this is a free country. If they have decided to support abortion and gay marriage, they certainly may. But they can't call themselves Catholic at the same time.
|
|
Oct 07, 03:28 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Please SOG...tell me where you found the ex cathedra infallibility doctrines concerning sexuality within the Catechism. I could not find them. You will have to lead me to them.
|
|
Oct 07, 03:22 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Sog. Do not dare to judge me and then receive Communion. These matters tend to be immaterial to me in many regards, I cannot get pregnant and I do not require contraception. I am old and if you are implying that I should have risked my wife's life, for reasons that you do not and will not know, because a man in a funny hat thought it was a good idea at the time..then you are nuts!
I have made my peace with the Church and discussed these issues in detail with my Confessor. I don't remember you being there Sog!
I have made my peace with the Church and discussed these issues in detail with my Confessor. I don't remember you being there Sog!
|
|
Oct 07, 03:10 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
poultry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You are right that the Church's teaching in is
> > against all artificial birth control. As for
> the
> > rythm method being BS.
> ___________________________________
>
> Both my children were conceived outside the
> "fertile period" I know because we wasted 2 years
> trying to get pregnant under "rythm" so my BS
> statement is from personal experience. I can
> clearly remember...the "not today not today ..its
> not time" day as being precisely the day!
>
> That life
> > begins at conception and that abortion is
> > inherently evil is a matter of infallable
> teaching
> > of the Church.
> ________________________________________________
> Wrong. It is not an ex-cathedra teaching. The
> only infallibility doctrines of modern day are on
> the virginity and Assumption of Mary.
You are wrong---go read your catechism
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You are right that the Church's teaching in is
> > against all artificial birth control. As for
> the
> > rythm method being BS.
> ___________________________________
>
> Both my children were conceived outside the
> "fertile period" I know because we wasted 2 years
> trying to get pregnant under "rythm" so my BS
> statement is from personal experience. I can
> clearly remember...the "not today not today ..its
> not time" day as being precisely the day!
>
> That life
> > begins at conception and that abortion is
> > inherently evil is a matter of infallable
> teaching
> > of the Church.
> ________________________________________________
> Wrong. It is not an ex-cathedra teaching. The
> only infallibility doctrines of modern day are on
> the virginity and Assumption of Mary.
You are wrong---go read your catechism
|
|
Oct 07, 03:09 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
poultry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AustinG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you didn't favor abortion then the right to
> > choose one wouldn't matter. You have all the
> > reproductive choices before getting pregnant.
> _______________________________________________
>
> Under Catholic teaching...no you do NOT! Only
> Rythm is acceptable.
> _______________________________________________
>
> > Pro-choice is not correct. You have all the
> > choices without abortion being one of them.
> That
> > is why that view should be correctly labeled
> > pro-abortion. Choice and abortion aren't the
> same
> > things and it is an effort to make what is and
> > seems dreadful to support more palatable by
> > renaming it.
> __________________________________________________
>
> Men do not have to choose so it is easy for us.
> Choice is the action of those that do not share a
> particular religious or even scientific bias.
> __________________________________________________
> ______________
>
> > Of course, but having sex should be done
> > responsibly because of disease and the
> possibility
> > that is has in creating another life. A woman
> can
> > have sex and not expect to get pregnant most of
> > the time. Birth control of one form or another
> is
> > needed during the time she is ovulating and
> right
> > before that or she has a chance of getting
> > pregnant. You know this, but are trying to
> make
> > it look like I am saying women can just abstain
> > from sex, which is true by the way, but it
> isn't
> > necessary.
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
>
> Again under Catholic doctrine disease and even a
> death sentence are just the penalty that you pay
> along with your soul, if you decide to use a
> condom to prevent disease OR conception.
>
> > > > It is science and not religion that tells
> us
> > > that
> > > > a unique life is created at conception.
> __________________________________________________
> __
> Where does science state that life begins at
> conception and does it reference hhuman" life?
>
>
> If you were more familiar with Catholic doctrine
> you would see why Catholics rely on conscience and
> reason to a much larger degree than what the
> church would like us to!
If you rely on your own conscience and reason and ignore what the Church teaches why even pretend to be Catholic. Just admit to yourself that you are not a Catholic and move on. Theres no shame in it, just be honest about it. The reason we believe that science supports life beginning at conception is that, at the moment of conception, there are living human cells with unique DNA dividing and reproducing as part of the constant and ever changing muturing process of human development.
-------------------------------------------------------
> AustinG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you didn't favor abortion then the right to
> > choose one wouldn't matter. You have all the
> > reproductive choices before getting pregnant.
> _______________________________________________
>
> Under Catholic teaching...no you do NOT! Only
> Rythm is acceptable.
> _______________________________________________
>
> > Pro-choice is not correct. You have all the
> > choices without abortion being one of them.
> That
> > is why that view should be correctly labeled
> > pro-abortion. Choice and abortion aren't the
> same
> > things and it is an effort to make what is and
> > seems dreadful to support more palatable by
> > renaming it.
> __________________________________________________
>
> Men do not have to choose so it is easy for us.
> Choice is the action of those that do not share a
> particular religious or even scientific bias.
> __________________________________________________
> ______________
>
> > Of course, but having sex should be done
> > responsibly because of disease and the
> possibility
> > that is has in creating another life. A woman
> can
> > have sex and not expect to get pregnant most of
> > the time. Birth control of one form or another
> is
> > needed during the time she is ovulating and
> right
> > before that or she has a chance of getting
> > pregnant. You know this, but are trying to
> make
> > it look like I am saying women can just abstain
> > from sex, which is true by the way, but it
> isn't
> > necessary.
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
>
> Again under Catholic doctrine disease and even a
> death sentence are just the penalty that you pay
> along with your soul, if you decide to use a
> condom to prevent disease OR conception.
>
> > > > It is science and not religion that tells
> us
> > > that
> > > > a unique life is created at conception.
> __________________________________________________
> __
> Where does science state that life begins at
> conception and does it reference hhuman" life?
>
>
> If you were more familiar with Catholic doctrine
> you would see why Catholics rely on conscience and
> reason to a much larger degree than what the
> church would like us to!
If you rely on your own conscience and reason and ignore what the Church teaches why even pretend to be Catholic. Just admit to yourself that you are not a Catholic and move on. Theres no shame in it, just be honest about it. The reason we believe that science supports life beginning at conception is that, at the moment of conception, there are living human cells with unique DNA dividing and reproducing as part of the constant and ever changing muturing process of human development.
|
|
Oct 07, 03:08 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Sog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are right that the Church's teaching in is
> against all artificial birth control. As for the
> rythm method being BS.
___________________________________
Both my children were conceived outside the "fertile period" I know because we wasted 2 years trying to get pregnant under "rythm" so my BS statement is from personal experience. I can clearly remember...the "not today not today ..its not time" day as being precisely the day!
That life
> begins at conception and that abortion is
> inherently evil is a matter of infallable teaching
> of the Church.
________________________________________________
Wrong. It is not an ex-cathedra teaching. The only infallibility doctrines of modern day are on the virginity and Assumption of Mary.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are right that the Church's teaching in is
> against all artificial birth control. As for the
> rythm method being BS.
___________________________________
Both my children were conceived outside the "fertile period" I know because we wasted 2 years trying to get pregnant under "rythm" so my BS statement is from personal experience. I can clearly remember...the "not today not today ..its not time" day as being precisely the day!
That life
> begins at conception and that abortion is
> inherently evil is a matter of infallable teaching
> of the Church.
________________________________________________
Wrong. It is not an ex-cathedra teaching. The only infallibility doctrines of modern day are on the virginity and Assumption of Mary.
|
|
Oct 07, 02:54 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
AustinG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you didn't favor abortion then the right to
> choose one wouldn't matter. You have all the
> reproductive choices before getting pregnant.
_______________________________________________
Under Catholic teaching...no you do NOT! Only Rythm is acceptable.
_______________________________________________
> Pro-choice is not correct. You have all the
> choices without abortion being one of them. That
> is why that view should be correctly labeled
> pro-abortion. Choice and abortion aren't the same
> things and it is an effort to make what is and
> seems dreadful to support more palatable by
> renaming it.
__________________________________________________
Men do not have to choose so it is easy for us. Choice is the action of those that do not share a particular religious or even scientific bias.
________________________________________________________________
> Of course, but having sex should be done
> responsibly because of disease and the possibility
> that is has in creating another life. A woman can
> have sex and not expect to get pregnant most of
> the time. Birth control of one form or another is
> needed during the time she is ovulating and right
> before that or she has a chance of getting
> pregnant. You know this, but are trying to make
> it look like I am saying women can just abstain
> from sex, which is true by the way, but it isn't
> necessary.
_________________________________________________________________
Again under Catholic doctrine disease and even a death sentence are just the penalty that you pay along with your soul, if you decide to use a condom to prevent disease OR conception.
> > > It is science and not religion that tells us
> > that
> > > a unique life is created at conception.
____________________________________________________
Where does science state that life begins at conception and does it reference hhuman" life?
If you were more familiar with Catholic doctrine you would see why Catholics rely on conscience and reason to a much larger degree than what the church would like us to!
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you didn't favor abortion then the right to
> choose one wouldn't matter. You have all the
> reproductive choices before getting pregnant.
_______________________________________________
Under Catholic teaching...no you do NOT! Only Rythm is acceptable.
_______________________________________________
> Pro-choice is not correct. You have all the
> choices without abortion being one of them. That
> is why that view should be correctly labeled
> pro-abortion. Choice and abortion aren't the same
> things and it is an effort to make what is and
> seems dreadful to support more palatable by
> renaming it.
__________________________________________________
Men do not have to choose so it is easy for us. Choice is the action of those that do not share a particular religious or even scientific bias.
________________________________________________________________
> Of course, but having sex should be done
> responsibly because of disease and the possibility
> that is has in creating another life. A woman can
> have sex and not expect to get pregnant most of
> the time. Birth control of one form or another is
> needed during the time she is ovulating and right
> before that or she has a chance of getting
> pregnant. You know this, but are trying to make
> it look like I am saying women can just abstain
> from sex, which is true by the way, but it isn't
> necessary.
_________________________________________________________________
Again under Catholic doctrine disease and even a death sentence are just the penalty that you pay along with your soul, if you decide to use a condom to prevent disease OR conception.
> > > It is science and not religion that tells us
> > that
> > > a unique life is created at conception.
____________________________________________________
Where does science state that life begins at conception and does it reference hhuman" life?
If you were more familiar with Catholic doctrine you would see why Catholics rely on conscience and reason to a much larger degree than what the church would like us to!
|
|
Oct 07, 02:50 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
poultry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> narno Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Um, Catholics don't oppose ALL birth control
> > devices, just ones that destroy a fertilized
> > embryo. As for the "one issue" crack, isn't
> that
> > what you dems are doing with Iraq?
> _____________________________________________
>
> WRONG! Unless you mean the rythm method or
> whatever BS the church is calling it lately. All
> contraception by artificial means is against
> teaching!
You are right that the Church's teaching in is against all artificial birth control. As for the rythm method being BS. I know a lot of couples who have used it with perfect success both to get pregnant and to avoid it. In fact when we were trying to have a child our doctor directed us to determine ovulation based on days after menstrual and body temps and it worked to perfection. Nonetheless there is some confusion here about a church teaching which is intended to provide guidance to the faithful and a statement of infallibility which must be followed. That life begins at conception and that abortion is inherently evil is a matter of infallable teaching of the Church. John Paul II said that rejecting these teachings excommunicates you from the Church. Using birth control that prevents conception is contrary to the church's teaching because it is believed to be against the will of God and therefore a sin because it takes control from God and puts it in the hands of people. However the two are not moral equivelents and the Church does not teach them to be.
-------------------------------------------------------
> narno Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Um, Catholics don't oppose ALL birth control
> > devices, just ones that destroy a fertilized
> > embryo. As for the "one issue" crack, isn't
> that
> > what you dems are doing with Iraq?
> _____________________________________________
>
> WRONG! Unless you mean the rythm method or
> whatever BS the church is calling it lately. All
> contraception by artificial means is against
> teaching!
You are right that the Church's teaching in is against all artificial birth control. As for the rythm method being BS. I know a lot of couples who have used it with perfect success both to get pregnant and to avoid it. In fact when we were trying to have a child our doctor directed us to determine ovulation based on days after menstrual and body temps and it worked to perfection. Nonetheless there is some confusion here about a church teaching which is intended to provide guidance to the faithful and a statement of infallibility which must be followed. That life begins at conception and that abortion is inherently evil is a matter of infallable teaching of the Church. John Paul II said that rejecting these teachings excommunicates you from the Church. Using birth control that prevents conception is contrary to the church's teaching because it is believed to be against the will of God and therefore a sin because it takes control from God and puts it in the hands of people. However the two are not moral equivelents and the Church does not teach them to be.
|
|
Oct 07, 02:40 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
None of the Church's current teaching on contraception, gay marriage/civil unions, abortion or sexuality in general are issues of Infallibility within Catholicism, they are merely teachings. Kind of like when they believed in witches and a flat earth! Telling a pregnant Catholic or any other woman that you ruined her life by governmental edict is not going to be fixed by "oops ..we were wrong".
|
|
Oct 07, 02:33 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
narno Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Um, Catholics don't oppose ALL birth control
> devices, just ones that destroy a fertilized
> embryo. As for the "one issue" crack, isn't that
> what you dems are doing with Iraq?
_____________________________________________
WRONG! Unless you mean the rythm method or whatever BS the church is calling it lately. All contraception by artificial means is against teaching!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Um, Catholics don't oppose ALL birth control
> devices, just ones that destroy a fertilized
> embryo. As for the "one issue" crack, isn't that
> what you dems are doing with Iraq?
_____________________________________________
WRONG! Unless you mean the rythm method or whatever BS the church is calling it lately. All contraception by artificial means is against teaching!
|
|
Oct 07, 02:22 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
cassamandra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> But people don't favor abortion, they favor the
> right to chose an abortion. So pro-choice is
> correct, even if
> pro-reproductive-choice-including-the-possibility-
> of-abortion-within-a-legal-framework would be even
> more correct. Just a bit cumbersome...
>
If you didn't favor abortion then the right to choose one wouldn't matter. You have all the reproductive choices before getting pregnant. There is a narrow window each month, or cycle if you prefer, in which a women can become pregnant. So she can choose to have unprotected sex during that time and there is then a chance she will get pregnant. If wants to choose to have sex during that time frame then she or man she is with can choose to use birth control. If the man doesn't want to wear a condom then she can choose to not have sex with him during that time frame or she can choose another birth control option.
Pro-choice is not correct. You have all the choices without abortion being one of them. That is why that view should be correctly labeled pro-abortion. Choice and abortion aren't the same things and it is an effort to make what is and seems dreadful to support more palatable by renaming it.
>
> You mean to say she often has to choice whether to
> have sex or not. The choice to have sex is not
> automatically the choice to get pregnant, you
> know?
Of course, but having sex should be done responsibly because of disease and the possibility that is has in creating another life. A woman can have sex and not expect to get pregnant most of the time. Birth control of one form or another is needed during the time she is ovulating and right before that or she has a chance of getting pregnant. You know this, but are trying to make it look like I am saying women can just abstain from sex, which is true by the way, but it isn't necessary.
> >
> > It is science and not religion that tells us
> that
> > a unique life is created at conception.
>
> So you oppose the pill and the IUD? Neither of
> them prevent conception, as I assume you know.
That is a factual statement that doesn't mean I support or oppose anything. What is commonly referred to as THE PILL does prevent conception. It makes the walls of the egg much more difficult for the sperm to breakthrough and then fertilize. You might have it confused with the other pill that can be taken after the fact which prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. I have forgotten what IUD stands for and don't wish to look it up right now, but it isn't that important to the context here. The fact that science tells us that a human life is created at conception was the point that I was making in the first place. You don't dispute this, but try to imply that it means I oppose things and then misrepresent what is known as THE PILL for decades does. That means you are being deceptive, are just ill informed, or both.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> But people don't favor abortion, they favor the
> right to chose an abortion. So pro-choice is
> correct, even if
> pro-reproductive-choice-including-the-possibility-
> of-abortion-within-a-legal-framework would be even
> more correct. Just a bit cumbersome...
>
If you didn't favor abortion then the right to choose one wouldn't matter. You have all the reproductive choices before getting pregnant. There is a narrow window each month, or cycle if you prefer, in which a women can become pregnant. So she can choose to have unprotected sex during that time and there is then a chance she will get pregnant. If wants to choose to have sex during that time frame then she or man she is with can choose to use birth control. If the man doesn't want to wear a condom then she can choose to not have sex with him during that time frame or she can choose another birth control option.
Pro-choice is not correct. You have all the choices without abortion being one of them. That is why that view should be correctly labeled pro-abortion. Choice and abortion aren't the same things and it is an effort to make what is and seems dreadful to support more palatable by renaming it.
>
> You mean to say she often has to choice whether to
> have sex or not. The choice to have sex is not
> automatically the choice to get pregnant, you
> know?
Of course, but having sex should be done responsibly because of disease and the possibility that is has in creating another life. A woman can have sex and not expect to get pregnant most of the time. Birth control of one form or another is needed during the time she is ovulating and right before that or she has a chance of getting pregnant. You know this, but are trying to make it look like I am saying women can just abstain from sex, which is true by the way, but it isn't necessary.
> >
> > It is science and not religion that tells us
> that
> > a unique life is created at conception.
>
> So you oppose the pill and the IUD? Neither of
> them prevent conception, as I assume you know.
That is a factual statement that doesn't mean I support or oppose anything. What is commonly referred to as THE PILL does prevent conception. It makes the walls of the egg much more difficult for the sperm to breakthrough and then fertilize. You might have it confused with the other pill that can be taken after the fact which prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. I have forgotten what IUD stands for and don't wish to look it up right now, but it isn't that important to the context here. The fact that science tells us that a human life is created at conception was the point that I was making in the first place. You don't dispute this, but try to imply that it means I oppose things and then misrepresent what is known as THE PILL for decades does. That means you are being deceptive, are just ill informed, or both.
|
|
Oct 07, 02:19 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
This is 2008. Does any one still seriously believe that anyone on Earth is infallible, including the Pope?
And if life begins at conception, then why do 60-80% of "human lives" never even implant themselves in the uterus, for completely natural reasons? Every time a sexually-active woman has her period, should we mourn it like a death just in case a "human life" was discharged? The answer is: no, human life doesn't begin at conception. And certainly not just because the Pope says so. God didn't so poorly create the universe.
And if life begins at conception, then why do 60-80% of "human lives" never even implant themselves in the uterus, for completely natural reasons? Every time a sexually-active woman has her period, should we mourn it like a death just in case a "human life" was discharged? The answer is: no, human life doesn't begin at conception. And certainly not just because the Pope says so. God didn't so poorly create the universe.
|
|
Oct 07, 02:12 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Catholics have a moral obligation to vote and with the proximity of the presidential election, American Catholics have been reminded by their bishops of our obligation to act in accordance with our Catholic conscience. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” (USCCB, Catholics in Political Life)
American Catholic apologists list five non-negotiable issues for Catholic voters:
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual Marriage
Obama is 5 for 5. A person who is "Catholic first" would never vote BO.
American Catholic apologists list five non-negotiable issues for Catholic voters:
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual Marriage
Obama is 5 for 5. A person who is "Catholic first" would never vote BO.
|
|
Oct 07, 02:12 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
cassamandra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> catholic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sog,
> >
> > you said: "People who claim to be Catholic and
> > pro-choice are just talking."
> >
> > Maybe so, and I won't debate whether the
> Catholic
> > authority is correct, or whether Catholics are
> > "allowed" to disagree with Church Dogma.
>
> The Catholic Church holds positions against
> environmental irresponsibility, war, the death
> penalty, consumerism, greed, etc. A Catholic is
> not only allowed but in fact must base his
> decision on all of these issues. Thus, there is no
> easy answer if a candidate in question opposes
> abortion but supports war and the death penalty (a
> fairly common configuration, oddly enough...).
you are right. every Catholic must base a vote on all the moral questions facing our nation. Not all questions of morality are equal in Catholic teaching however. The death penalty and whether a war is justified for example are questions that the catechism gives guidance on but does not make a determined finding of and leaves as matter of individual conscience. I was not addressing, in my post, what factors should be considered when voting however. I was pointing out merely that people cannot be pro-choice and catholic. The two terms are mutually exclusive. It does not mean that you cannot vote for a non-Catholic or even someone pro-choice. I personnally think it improbable that a person could seriously care for the environment, the sick, the elderly and the poor while thinking it perfectly ok to kill babies. One very basic Catholic concept is that good never comes from evil. That is why destroying embryos for research cannot be justified based on the supposed good that will come from it. At least not in Catholic teaching. So to believe that someone who supports the inherently evil act of abortion will do good for the environment, the poor or the elderly is not consistent with Catholic teaching.
-------------------------------------------------------
> catholic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sog,
> >
> > you said: "People who claim to be Catholic and
> > pro-choice are just talking."
> >
> > Maybe so, and I won't debate whether the
> Catholic
> > authority is correct, or whether Catholics are
> > "allowed" to disagree with Church Dogma.
>
> The Catholic Church holds positions against
> environmental irresponsibility, war, the death
> penalty, consumerism, greed, etc. A Catholic is
> not only allowed but in fact must base his
> decision on all of these issues. Thus, there is no
> easy answer if a candidate in question opposes
> abortion but supports war and the death penalty (a
> fairly common configuration, oddly enough...).
you are right. every Catholic must base a vote on all the moral questions facing our nation. Not all questions of morality are equal in Catholic teaching however. The death penalty and whether a war is justified for example are questions that the catechism gives guidance on but does not make a determined finding of and leaves as matter of individual conscience. I was not addressing, in my post, what factors should be considered when voting however. I was pointing out merely that people cannot be pro-choice and catholic. The two terms are mutually exclusive. It does not mean that you cannot vote for a non-Catholic or even someone pro-choice. I personnally think it improbable that a person could seriously care for the environment, the sick, the elderly and the poor while thinking it perfectly ok to kill babies. One very basic Catholic concept is that good never comes from evil. That is why destroying embryos for research cannot be justified based on the supposed good that will come from it. At least not in Catholic teaching. So to believe that someone who supports the inherently evil act of abortion will do good for the environment, the poor or the elderly is not consistent with Catholic teaching.
|
|
Oct 07, 02:00 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
rayy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is freedom of conscience, which, even if it
> were not recognized by the church, is still a
> guiding principle for some. You don't check your
> brain at the door. They also say that
> homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered". Yet
> science is increasingly finding that it may have
> hereditary or hormonal components. Don't
> forget--this is the same church that locked up
> Galileo for proclaiming the heresy of the earth
> revolving around the sun.
How far does your freedom of conscience go? Can I abuse my children if it does not violate my conscience..no, can I rape, murder and steal...no, mmm. I dont think there is such a thing as a freedom of conscience at all. Where would we find such a freedom? Is it in the Declaration of Indipendence or the Constitution? Nope. We have certain freedoms when the exercise of those freedoms does not intrude upon the freedoms of others. Abortion intrudes upon the freedom of the child to live. The question of whether the child is distinct human life worthy and entilted to Constitutional protections is a question the Supreme Court attempted to answer in Roe. I suggest that they got it wrong much like the did when they attempted to answer the same question regarding blacks in the Dredd Scott case.
If the unborn child is not alive then why would it have to be killed or aborted? Does not some, in order to be aborted, have to be begun.
As for homosexuality being disorderd. It is interesting to analyze what that means, though I admit I dont really know. It would seem to me that from an evolutionary analysis homosexuality would be adverse. If homosexuality is biological then it will die out due to natural selection. If it is behavioural it will probably remain in the society at its current level forever. curious huh?
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is freedom of conscience, which, even if it
> were not recognized by the church, is still a
> guiding principle for some. You don't check your
> brain at the door. They also say that
> homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered". Yet
> science is increasingly finding that it may have
> hereditary or hormonal components. Don't
> forget--this is the same church that locked up
> Galileo for proclaiming the heresy of the earth
> revolving around the sun.
How far does your freedom of conscience go? Can I abuse my children if it does not violate my conscience..no, can I rape, murder and steal...no, mmm. I dont think there is such a thing as a freedom of conscience at all. Where would we find such a freedom? Is it in the Declaration of Indipendence or the Constitution? Nope. We have certain freedoms when the exercise of those freedoms does not intrude upon the freedoms of others. Abortion intrudes upon the freedom of the child to live. The question of whether the child is distinct human life worthy and entilted to Constitutional protections is a question the Supreme Court attempted to answer in Roe. I suggest that they got it wrong much like the did when they attempted to answer the same question regarding blacks in the Dredd Scott case.
If the unborn child is not alive then why would it have to be killed or aborted? Does not some, in order to be aborted, have to be begun.
As for homosexuality being disorderd. It is interesting to analyze what that means, though I admit I dont really know. It would seem to me that from an evolutionary analysis homosexuality would be adverse. If homosexuality is biological then it will die out due to natural selection. If it is behavioural it will probably remain in the society at its current level forever. curious huh?