“There should be no laws on abortion”

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cal_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sad. I don’t know how any “Catholic” institution can rationalize celebrating pro abortion politicians. They wouldn’t celebrate Nazis would they?
 
It may not be my views on abortion, but he has some sense of the political turf and the legislative laws.

How hard is it to ‘legislate morality’ for everyone in the country with so many different religions and no religions. It is costly enough (for all of us) to legislate and enforce the laws ‘for the common good’, without getting into a specific religious morality.

Say, if abortion were illegal; then missing Sunday Mass became illegal; then not eating fish on Fridays during lent became illegal; then etc.; wouldn’t this be protested by the Protestants, Jews, Baptists, Mormons, atheists… What if the original founders, mostly Puritans, made laws for all of us based on there religious morals? All infractions would land you in jail and have fines. Where would us Catholics fit then? How would Catholic’s fight if drinking and smoking were illegal (it’s becoming that way already), according to the Mormon Religious Morality?

As I say, he makes sense for the Nation we live in. He is saying to let the Church/Religion ‘legislate’ abortion morality within their own members and the condemnation of such as well… while leaving the other religions practice their own religions according to their morals.

I do not necessarily agree with him, where a country has a Christian majority, but, Religion and Politics are not good bedfellows. This has been tried in times past without success, only wars and martyrs and fighting prevailed.

It’s a tough call, but educating the people, rather then legislate, about morals, is a more peaceful approach. To this end, no Catholic’s should be having abortions… and any other religion that has the same moral code.
 
Michael_David said:
How hard is it to ‘legislate morality’ for everyone in the country with so many different religions and no religions. It is costly enough (for all of us) to legislate and enforce the laws ‘for the common good’, without getting into a specific religious morality.
Click to expand...
Abortion isn’t a religious issue. It is a human rights issue. It is an issue of justice. The right to life is the most fundamental right from which all other rights flow.

Talk of religion-this or religion-that is beside the point at best. At worst, it’s code for telling religious people to stay out of public life.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
You’ve got to be kidding. Bluntly speaking, this is a heretical institution presenting an award to a heretic.

The “popular consensus” was to return to Egypt after being led into the wilderness by Moses.

The “popular consensus” was to turn away from God and worship other idols and gods not of Israel.

The “popular consensus” was to crucify Christ.

… every man did what he thought was right. Judges 21:25

Scott
 
40.png
mlchance:
Abortion isn’t a religious issue. It is a human rights issue. It is an issue of justice. The right to life is the most fundamental right from which all other rights flow.
Click to expand...
Just curious: Why do embryos have a right to life?
 
mlchance said:
Abortion isn’t a religious issue. It is a human rights issue. It is an issue of justice. The right to life is the most fundamental right from which all other rights flow.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Remember, I did say it was not my views, merely that I saw his reasoning for his.

Abortion “Has Become” a religious issue. The then President and Supreme Court did not see it as a National issue… even though “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” was in our Constitution. Not to judge the judges, but I believe they combined those rights for the person existing now… not the unborn yet to be. Even our present political candidates seem to want to preserve the Freedoms… as long as they do not invade another person’s rights.

The main question I have is this: when this judgment was being made in the highest court of our land, where was the defense for the unborn? They could not speak for themselves (yet), they did not have a voice (yet)… the speaking and voices were of the woman (already alive in the flesh). The laws of the land were written for the Citizens of this land, not the ‘future citizens’ if they are allowed to go full term. As I see it, the Court put more weight on the NOW Citizen’s voice, then on the FUTURE Citizen’s silence… all to uphold the ‘Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness’ of the voices that were heard.
 
mlchance said:
Abortion isn’t a religious issue. It is a human rights issue. It is an issue of justice. The right to life is the most fundamental right from which all other rights flow.

Talk of religion-this or religion-that is beside the point at best. At worst, it’s code for telling religious people to stay out of public life.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Since when is the right to not be murdered exclusively a religious issue?
 
Michael_David said:
Say, if abortion were illegal; then missing Sunday Mass became illegal; then not eating fish on Fridays during lent became illegal; then etc.; wouldn’t this be protested by the Protestants, Jews, Baptists, Mormons, atheists… What if the original founders, mostly Puritans, made laws for all of us based on there religious morals? All infractions would land you in jail and have fines. Where would us Catholics fit then? How would Catholic’s fight if drinking and smoking were illegal (it’s becoming that way already), according to the Mormon Religious Morality?
Click to expand...
Abortion is wrong for secular reasons. There are atheist (like Doris Gordon from the libertarians for life) who are just as opposed to abortion as a Catholic, and obviously (as an atheist) this person is not doing it for religious reasons.
Michael_David said:
Remember, I did say it was not my views, merely that I saw his reasoning for his.
Click to expand...
Please realize that above you said he was making good political sense. I think you’re giving mixed signals.
Shredderbeam said:
Just curious: Why do embryos have a right to life?
Click to expand...
After fertilization, we’re dealing with a unique individual human organism (as per Biology). Most pro-lifers (myself included) do not consider such an organism to also be a non-person.
 
“Please realize that above you said he was making good political sense. I think you’re giving mixed signals.”

Dustin, please remember that one can understand another’s view “without” necessarily agreeing with it.

I put the case onto the legal system, since that is where the laws are made. In that system, one becomes a legal citizen when born in this country (or through immigration). This is where the present day law calls it. They do not say that one is a citizen at ‘Conception’. If that were the case, then if a women came over here and had a baby 2 months later, that baby Born Here would be a citizen of the country she left (not the country of birth).

Can you have it BOTH ways? Through the legal system? It’s the definitions in the legal system that need to be ‘corrected’ to reflect when the life begins and who’s citizen one is. This is what Leon Panetta was referring to… and to what I understand what he is reasoning.

My personal views say both ways… but the law of the land does not.
 
Michael_David said:
“Please realize that above you said he was making good political sense. I think you’re giving mixed signals.”

Dustin, please remember that one can understand another’s view “without” necessarily agreeing with it.

I put the case onto the legal system, since that is where the laws are made. In that system, one becomes a legal citizen when born in this country (or through immigration). This is where the present day law calls it. They do not say that one is a citizen at ‘Conception’. If that were the case, then if a women came over here and had a baby 2 months later, that baby Born Here would be a citizen of the country she left (not the country of birth).

Can you have it BOTH ways? Through the legal system? It’s the definitions in the legal system that need to be ‘corrected’ to reflect when the life begins and who’s citizen one is. This is what Leon Panetta was referring to… and to what I understand what he is reasoning.

My personal views say both ways… but the law of the land does not.
Click to expand...
Currently, do non US citizens have the right to life?
 
fix, ‘the right to life’ (yes); and ‘life’ (yes).

Common terms refer to the ‘right to life’ of the unborn; and ‘life’ to those alive now. Legal definition, as in the Constitution, ‘Right’s to life…’ again refers to those alive now. This is where the definitions have to be changed for pro-life to become viable. Otherwise, it will be as Leon says, through education of the people.
 
Sean Boyle:
Because they are human. As a former fetus, you should know that!

Your kidding yourself to believe otherwise and devaluing society at the same time.
Click to expand...
Is there something about human cells that inherently grants them all rights? Does a culture of skin cells receive the same rights?
 
Michael_David said:
As I say, he makes sense for the Nation we live in. He is saying to let the Church/Religion ‘legislate’ abortion morality within their own members and the condemnation of such as well… while leaving the other religions practice their own religions according to their morals.
Click to expand...
Why should murder be illegal? Here is a practical example: In some muslim countries, under local tribal law, if a girl/woman is kidnapped, her virginity is questionable. If she is returned, the practice is often to have a father or brother kill her as a matter of family honor. It is considered an honor killing, and is almost never investigated by authorities.

Should we legalize homocide in the case of “honor killing” of women, and then let Church/Religion ‘legislate’ homicide morality within their own members and the condemnation of such as well… while leaving the other religions practice their own religions according to their morals?

If replace the word abortion with murder (or even homicide) in question like these makes the question seem absurd, and it should. Abortion is code for infanticide the way “final solution” was once code for genocide.

John
 
“Here is a practical example: In some muslim countries, under local tribal law, if a girl/woman is kidnapped, her virginity is questionable. If she is returned, the practice is often to have a father or brother kill her as a matter of family honor. It is considered an honor killing, and is almost never investigated by authorities.”

Kepha, this is true in some Muslim countries, as well as other countries where honor is the law. And you did say “muslim country”… here we are referencing America. Where Leon has said what he did to our people, as a Jesuit. One has to consider why the pro-life movement has become what it is and why the resistance by the pro-choice movement is as strong as it is. They have the law on their side… the pro-life movement does not… because of legalities.

Leon is circling the house looking for a door to enter that is not barricaded. And he sees none. If life begins at conception, that is what us pro-life people believe, notice I said “Believe”… then it becomes a moral or religious matter since ‘Believe’ and ‘Faith’ mean the same thing to one who is pro-choice. The pro-choice people tend to ‘believe’ it begins at birth… and the law says the same thing. So their belief is not moral or religious, it is LAW.

See how the circle turns.

That is why I tend to agree (in a few respects) that the legal definitions have to be amended to reflect what we ‘believe’ for our pro-life movements to gain headway. How many years has this been going on now? And why can’t we get it to stop? There seems to be no loop-hole to get around it… as Leon has admitted. Education is Leon’s best answer for now.
 
kepha95 said:
Why should murder be illegal? Here is a practical example: In some muslim countries, under local tribal law, if a girl/woman is kidnapped, her virginity is questionable. If she is returned, the practice is often to have a father or brother kill her as a matter of family honor. It is considered an honor killing, and is almost never investigated by authorities.

Should we legalize homocide in the case of “honor killing” of women, and then let Church/Religion ‘legislate’ homicide morality within their own members and the condemnation of such as well… while leaving the other religions practice their own religions according to their morals?

If replace the word abortion with murder (or even homicide) in question like these makes the question seem absurd, and it should. Abortion is code for infanticide the way “final solution” was once code for genocide.

John
Click to expand...
Great example…and one would never hear, “well I wouldn’t ever honor kill my own daughter, but if someone wants that 'choice” I Have to support it."
 
Shredderbeam said:
Is there something about human cells that inherently grants them all rights? Does a culture of skin cells receive the same rights?
Click to expand...
The zygote, at conception, is a brand new unique set of 46 chromosomes. 23 from the mother and 23 from the father. There has never been and never will be another genetic set identical to the set created at conception.

A culture of skin cells is just that…skin cells. The same exact chromosomal composition as the person they came from. There is nothing unique about the culture of skin cells except that they form skin and not some other organ or tissue.

I think the arguments from science hold no water…some people will try to say that twining can occur up to the 14th day after conception. That is great. I have also never seen a scientific study that said that identical twins are 100% exactly the same as far as their entire genome is concerned. There are different epigenetic changes which cause slight variation in expression of genes.

So, to answer your question, the very fact that conception happened and there is a unique genetic cell that will become a human grants that unique cell all the rights you have. But maybe you would be okay with having the same rights as that cell. If someone got tired of you and didn’t want you then they could just kill you…no questions asked. Just something to think about.
 
Shredderbeam said:
Just curious: Why do embryos have a right to life?
Click to expand...
If a human embryo is not a human, then when does it become human? When you can see an arm or a leg or what? I was taught in biology classes that a single celled organism was living. Certainly a human embryo must be alive, it is just a human at the earliest stages of growth just like a baby grows into an adult, the embryo grows into a baby. Just another thought anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top