just to let everyone know (as if you can’t think for yourselves] this poster has no idea what a catholic is.
this person is a character assasin, probably because she has no ability to debate in any fashion.
everything I say is taken out of context and then rebuilt as a straw man by her.
this poster is the perfect example of how many close minded people there are on the internet.
Your suggestion that TheRealJulianne is a character assassin is as rediculous as the logic of your posts.
The true character assassination was self administered. If you were a true Catholic you would support and live by the Catholic Catechism. Read
Section Two, Chapter Two, where it tells us that human life is sacred.
It repeats Thous Shall Not Kill. It tells us that It tells us that infanticide, fratricide, farricide and the murder of a spouse are grave wrongs. Then, finally, it states explicitly -
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
Are you familiar with
The Didache? Written in the first century AD, it explicitly states -
“Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery”; thou shalt not commit sodomy; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use magic; thou shalt not use philtres;** thou shalt not procure abortion**, nor commit infanticide; “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods”;
You, of course, side step the Cathechism by declaring in
post #29 *You must be born before you can be a child. Unborn are not children.
*. You are using the same word play to obfuscate the issue, just as the Nazis and Stalinism did. Most people, as has been done throughout most of history, describe a new born as a
baby. However, according to your warped logic, a baby wouldn’t be described as being one of a family’s children! It would seem that your convoluted word play is your attempt at saying a baby is not a person. Would that be correct? Well then I have to ask something another poster asked of you. How is it that a baby passing through a birth canal confers personhood onto a baby? Why is it a non-person in the womb and yet a person once outside the womb? i then need to ask, what about a baby that doesn’t pass through a birth canal, but is removed by ceasarian? Is it a person once so delivered? If it is, then that shoots down the birth canal argument for conferring personhood! Is a baby removed from the womb by forceps become a person? Does the simple fact that a baby once outside the womb, by any means, become a person? If so, then a baby killed inside the womb would be a dead non-person, but then when removed would become a dead person? You see, the “logic” of what you say is just so arbitrary as to be nonsensical. I’ll even confuse the issue for you a little more. Amongst certain Australian Aborigines, a baby did not become a “person” until around five years old, when it began to exhibit an independent personality, so if the baby, even though it was a child, was a burden, it was OK to bash its brains out against a tree trunk, because it wasn’t an independent person. As you support the granting of personhood status to someone according to what side of the birth canal they are on, you’d also have to also accept the aborigines arbitrary conferal of personhood according to age. Agreed?
In earlier posts I referred to a book called
Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin, by Harvard historian Professor Timothy Snyder. In that book Snyder tells how the Jews were expatriated as non-persons into western Soviet Ukraine by the Nazis. So, on one side of the Molotov-Ribbontrop line the Jews were non-persons and on the other side they were persons again! Just like the views you express about an unborn being a non-person, it was all relative and expedient.
Furthermore, in
post #29 you label Whiteacre_Girl’s use of the term “Pro-abortion” as “bigotry”. . It becomes bigotry when it conflicts with and labels the views of those who are afraid of the connotations that the term carries. Look up the meaning of the word ‘abortion’. You are very obviously pro-abortion. The adjective is apt. You just don’t like the real meaning and you excuse it by arbitrarily ascribing non-personhood onto unborn babies, in contravention of the Catholic Church’s teachings. Therefore, TheRealJulianne is correct in stating that you have no idea what a Catholic is. A Catholic does not so arbitrarily annoint human beings person and non-personhood status as you did. That is the preserve of the moral relativists as exemplified by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and a few other choice examples of murderous dictators. The pity is, non-thinking people pick up on the nuanced destruction of human morality and then run with it. As you so ably demonstrate.
I now ask, explicitly, do you support the Catholic Catechism?
