Abortion and politics

[CMatt25]

They are especially for people killing their chidren in third world countries as it cutes down on the number of black brown and yellow childern born into the world.

I take total offense at this You don’t know someone but you are going to imply they are a racist? SHAME ON YOU! :tsktsk:

 

[CMatt25]

I hope you do not blindly follow, but your justification of promoting abortion by trying to dumb down the issue seems to indicate otherwise. You have raised many issues in this post. Please explain your accusation about the CC paying lip service about the death penalty. Do you know what the CC teaches about that? Do you know how many were put to death last year VS the number of killing of the most innocent unborn?

I hear virtually nothing about killing people on death row in comparison to abortion. That is what I meant. But of course why should I not expect silence when I know the Church allows for killing them even though while at the same time saying cases should be practically non existent.

2267 **The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings **effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’

I believe this is not fully compatible with what Jesus taught in Matt 5:38 - 39. “You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. **But I say to you **not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other.” Jesus did not say here eye for eye is ok in even a rare case. Jesus said you have heard eye for eye BUT.

And lip service? Stick in there cases should be practically non existent but only speak of abortion and look the other way when human beings are killed by the state. What I mean is I can not remember the last time at Mass (multiple parishes) when I have heard anything said about the death penalty. War? I heard a call to end war over a yr ago at Mass and nearly fell out of my seat! But abortion? Mentioned at every Mass.

Too much one issue at the expense of many others. Peace.

 

[estesbob]

Unfortunately, Eugenics does still appear to have supporters.

Yet there are those who equate abortion (An intrinsic evil. The murder of an innocent child 100% of the time) to the death penalty or war, in an attempt to justify abortion. Since, in certain cases, the death penalty or war can be justified morally. In fact they can become a moral duty.

Planned parenthood was founded on eugeneics. And lest pople think that is a thing of the past heres Justice Gingburgs comments last year:

• Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. (emphasis added)*

standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/23941/

I is no accident that most abortuaries are located in minority areas. it is no accident that 1/3 of US abortions every year kill african amercian children it no accident that the bulk of US overseas " family planning" funds go to african countires. . After all , as that champion of the Left Justice Gingsburg said, its all about limiting the population of those we dont want to many of.

 

[Geremia]

And they need to repent and convert. They support baby killing. Plain and simple.

Amen. This isn’t rocket-science–caliber ethics.

 

[dmelosi]

I hear virtually nothing about killing people on death row in comparison to abortion. That is what I meant. But of course why should I not expect silence when I know the Church allows for killing them even though while at the same time saying cases should be practically non existent.

2267 **The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings **effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’

I believe this is not fully compatible with what Jesus taught in Matt 5:38 - 39. “You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. **But I say to you **not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other.” Jesus did not say here eye for eye is ok in even a rare case. Jesus said you have heard eye for eye BUT.

And lip service? Stick in there cases should be practically non existent but only speak of abortion and look the other way when human beings are killed by the state. What I mean is I can not remember the last time at Mass (multiple parishes) when I have heard anything said about the death penalty. War? I heard a call to end war over a yr ago at Mass and nearly fell out of my seat! But abortion? Mentioned at every Mass.

Too much one issue at the expense of many others. Peace.

1.2 million killed every single year. Too much?

 

[CMatt25]

Amen. This isn’t rocket-science–caliber ethics.

Let me know when science proves the soul has entered the body at the moment of conception. One might even argue Genesis tells us body + breath = soul. Let me know when the embryo can breathe on its own at conception and can viably survive outside the womb at the moment of conception. You are correct. It’s not science. It’s FAITH. BELIEF. God bless you in yours and peace.

 

[CMatt25]

1.2 million killed every single year. Too much?

Killing one human being born with a soul is 1 too many. 1 human being born with a soul who died because they could not afford adequate health care or were denied coverage due to pre existing conditions while the bishops were fighting health care reform. Absolutely 1 too many. Peace.

 

[dmelosi]

Killing one human being born with a soul is 1 too many. 1 human being born with a soul who died because they could not afford adequate health care or were denied coverage due to pre existing conditions while the bishops were fighting health care reform. Absolutely 1 too many. Peace.

Do you know why they fought healthcare? That should really prove the point you are missing.

 

[CMatt25]

Do you know why they fought healthcare? That should really prove the point you are missing.

Yeah because they were missing the point that the Hyde amendment still rules the land.

The sooner the CC begins to understand we do not live in a theocracy the better for the unborn. I pray with all my heart for a time when we can finally begin to move to a more common middle ground and begin to work further to help make abortion, while safe and legal in a free society of many faiths and beliefs on this issue, even rarer. This will take not demanding an all or nothing approach of returning to the back alleys pre - Roe. But instead working to make sure there are the needed social programs in place to provide care for the children when born. Individuals and the Church, while great to try, can not do it alone. If the Catholics today were half as ardent in supporting government social programs as they are in banning all abortion, what a better start God’s little children would have.
God bless you and peace.

 

[dmelosi]

Yeah because they were missing the point that the Hyde amendment still rules the land.

The sooner the CC begins to understand we do not live in a theocracy the better for the unborn. I pray with all my heart for a time when we can finally begin to move to a more common middle ground and begin to work further to help make abortion, while safe and legal in a free society of many faiths and beliefs on this issue, even rarer. This will take not demanding an all or nothing approach of returning to the back alleys pre - Roe. But instead working to make sure there are the needed social programs in place to provide care for the children when born. If the Catholics today were half as ardent in supporting government social programs as they are in banning all abortion, what a better start God’s little children would have.
God bless you and peace.

Your assumption that the government social programs are causing more good than harm show your political blindness. Most of the programs do not encourage a person to improve, but to let others take care of them. Of course there has to be a safety net, but that line has been crossed to the extreme.

 

[CMatt25]

Your assumption that the government social programs are causing more good than harm show your political blindness.

 

[Geremia]

Yeah because they were missing the point that the Hyde amendment still rules the land.

No, the healthcare bill would still bypass this, and Obama’s executive order was a useless gesture.

The sooner the CC begins to understand we do not live in a theocracy the better for the unborn.

So basically an atheocracy, e.g., communism, would be better? Didn’t Germany and the USSR have that?

I pray with all my heart for a time when we can finally begin to move to a more common middle ground and begin to work further to help make abortion, while safe and legal in a free society of many faiths and beliefs on this issue, even rarer.

There is no middle ground between life and death.

This will take not demanding an all or nothing approach of returning to the back alleys pre - Roe.

So basically you want the Church to blur Her doctrine on when life begins?

But instead working to make sure there are the needed social programs in place to provide care for the children when born.

But at the same time we can’t promote abortions by having laws that convince many people that it is not murder.

Individuals and the Church, while great to try, can not do it alone.

Who else is left, then?

If the Catholics today were half as ardent in supporting government social programs as they are in banning all abortion, what a better start God’s little children would have.

Take education, which has definitely overstepped its bounds in the U.S., becoming basically a childcare service, as an example. Pope Pius XI wrote in his encyclical Divini illius magistri, commenting on a 1925 Supreme Court case in Oregon and homeschooling:

1. …] the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in a decision on an important controversy, declared that it is not in the competence of the State to fix any uniform standard of education by forcing children to receive instruction exclusively in public schools, and it bases its decision on the natural law: the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right coupled with the high duty, to educate him and prepare him for the fulfillment of his obligations.

…]

1. …] We wish to call your attention in a special manner to the present-day lamentable decline in family education. The offices and professions of a transitory and earthly life, which are certainly of far less importance, are prepared for by long and careful study; whereas for the fundamental duty and obligation of educating their children, many parents have little or no preparation, immersed as they are in temporal cares. The declining influence of domestic environment is further weakened by another tendency, prevalent almost everywhere today, which, under one pretext or another, for economic reasons, or for reasons of industry, trade or politics, causes children to be more and more frequently sent away from home even in their tenderest years. And there is a country where the children are actually being torn from the bosom of the family, to be formed (or, to speak more accurately, to be deformed and depraved) in godless schools and associations, to irreligion and hatred, according to the theories of advanced socialism; and thus is renewed in a real and more terrible manner the slaughter of the Innocents.

When a child is “the mere creature of the State” and is “torn from the bosom of the family,” he risks being formed “in godless schools and associations, to irreligion and hatred, according to the theories of advanced socialism; and thus is renewed in a real and more terrible manner the slaughter of the Innocents.” Do you not think this applies to schools today, which want to teach kindergärtners sex-ed and homosexuality? They are indeed godless.

Anyways, sorry about the digression. I could quote much evidence showing that it is the family’s role to form children, not the State’s. With divorce rates well over 50% in the U.S. and this month being “gay awareness month,” we can see why children are so neglected and/or deprived.

 

[Geremia]

Let me know when science proves the soul has entered the body at the moment of conception.

Modern science, e.g., physics, will never be able to prove the existence of the soul because the soul is immaterial and modern science deals with the material.

Let me know when the embryo can breathe on its own at conception and can viably survive outside the womb at the moment of conception.

Viability outside the womb is an absurd condition for the humanness of life. In vitro fertilized people exist in a Petri dish before entering the mother’s womb, and are prematurely-born people humans sooner than they would’ve been had they taken 9 months to be born?

You are correct. It’s not science.

Are you implying by this that it’s irrational?

It’s FAITH.

Yes, faith and Revelation give us knowledge of these truths.

Also, if you do not believe that humans have souls, an “intellective soul” or “mind” that reasons, unlike the brute animals, at the moment of conception, then it would behoove you to read this argument from , lib. 2 cap. 86 n. 4-5Summa Contra Gentiles and , lib. 2 cap. 89 n. 3ibid. because of its medically-based reasoning, which argues through cell division that humans have an infused soul:

…] the intellective soul is the most perfect of souls and its power the highest [and] its proper perfectible subject is a body having many different organs through which its multifarious operations can be carried out; and that is why the soul cannot possibly be actually present in the semen separated from the body …] The intellect, which is the proper and principal power of the intellective soul, is not the act of any part of the body, and therefore it cannot be divided accidentally as a result of the body’s being divided [as through cell division]. Nor, then, can the intellective soul be so divided.

…]

Hence, from the hypothesis that the human soul is brought into being through the active power in the semen it follows that its being depends upon matter, as with other material forms. But the contrary of this has already been proved. The intellective soul, therefore, is in no way produced through the transmission of the semen.

…]

And the hypothesis of the soul’s presence in the semen from the beginning would entail the further consequence that animal generation takes place solely by way of partition, as with annulose animals, where two are produced from one. For, if the semen were possessed of a soul at the moment of its separation, it would then already be endowed with a substantial form. But in every case substantial generation precedes the substantial form; it never comes after it; and if any changes follow in the wake of the substantial form, they concern not the being but the well-being of the thing generated. Thus, the engendering of the animal would be completed with the mere alienation of the semen; and all subsequent changes would have no bearing upon the process of generation.

But this theory would be even more ridiculous if applied to the rational soul. For, first, the soul cannot possibly be divided as the body is, so as to be present in the separated semen; and second, it would follow that in all extra-copulative emissions of semen, without conception taking place, rational souls would nevertheless be multiplied.

 

[CMatt25]

Geremia, thank you for the links but because the USCCB says the Hyde Amendment would no longer be the law of the land, I’m supposed to only take their interpretation of US law? You can if you want.

Yes the Church changing her emphasis would be a good idea based on the issues Christ most talked about in Scripture. But you can believe as you want.

What else is left besides indviduals and the Church? When they fail as they have to live up to the social Gospel Jesus taught? That’s when we as individuals of a democratic nation (called a government) must come together and step up to the plate and assume a role to provide for the social betterment of those Jesus so clearly taught us to serve.

When did I say humans didn’t have souls? Please don’t put words into my mouth. But I don’t live in a Catholic theocracy. You might desire to. I don’t.

You do understand don’t you that for revelation to be 100% absolute truth and knowledge, that one must first have FAITH and BELIEF in those things one BELIEVES to be revealed? You are free to convince yourself otherwise. But no, what we have is faith and belief. And please don’t take me wrong. I have tons of faith. I simply recognize that is what it is. I must have faith in a Creator to begin the journey. For me that means placing faith in the Genesis story. Then I must have faith in the NT story of Christ’s death and resurrection.to continue my journey with Christ. You do understand not everyone in the world shares our faith, right? If everything was so clearly proven knowledge as you like to think it is, everyone would be the same. That’s fantasy for now. Not the real world.

If people are in a petri dish then God might as well not have bothered with a womb at all in which embryos could actually develop into people before birth.

One pt I will give you. Science will never prove the soul. As that’s something only faith can do.

God bless you and peace be with you always.

 

[Geremia]

Geremia, thank you for the links but because the USCCB says the Hyde Amendment would no longer be the law of the land, I’m supposed to only take their interpretation of US law?

No, not necessarily; these statements of theirs are not infallible, but how exactly is their interpretation wrong?

Yes the Church changing her emphasis would be a good idea based on the issues Christ most talked about in Scripture.

Christ did reiterate, as he had done to Moses, “Thou shalt not kill” ([bibledrb]Matthew 5:21-22[/bibledrb]) and of course there is Jeremiah 1:5 where Christ says:[bibledrb]Jeremiah 1:5[/bibledrb]

But you can believe as you want.

Sure, but some things people believe are actually true.

What else is left besides indviduals and the Church? When they fail as they have to live up to the social Gospel Jesus taught?

Such as speaking up for the 50 million tiniest ones among us who were killed in their mothers’ wombs? Isn’t this a “social Gospel?” (See long bible quote below.) If not, what do you mean?

That’s when we as individuals of a democratic nation (called a government) must come together and step up to the plate and assume a role to provide for the social betterment of those Jesus so clearly taught us to serve.

I think a tranquil environment in mothers’ wombs is a basic human right.

:shrug:When did I say humans didn’t have souls?

I didn’t say you did or didn’t; I don’t know.

But I don’t live in a Catholic theocracy.

I don’t either. The U.S. is pretty far from that.

You might desire to. I don’t.

Why don’t you desire it?

You do understand don’t you that for revelation to be 100% absolute truth and knowledge, that one must first have FAITH and BELIEF in those things one BELIEVES to be revealed?

Yes

You are free to convince yourself otherwise. But no, what we have is faith and belief. And please don’t take me wrong. I have tons of faith. I simply recognize that is what it is. I must have faith in a Creator to begin the journey. For me that means placing faith in the Genesis story. Then I must have faith in the NT story of Christ’s death and resurrection.to continue my journey with Christ.

And in the tradition, Church, and Her sacraments, too; I assume you think this follows from what you said above, right?

You do understand not everyone in the world shares our faith, right?

Yes

This definitely summarizes everything, from the fact that we will be judged based upon how we treat our “least breathren,” e.g., unborn humans, to the fact that some “that shall be on his left hand” “shall go into everlasting punishment,” which denies that everyone shares our faith:
[bibledrb]Matthew 25:31-45[/bibledrb]

If everything was so clearly proven knowledge as you like to think it is, everyone would be the same. That’s fantasy for now. Not the real world.

Is it a fantasy to desire that everyone in the world become Catholic? God profoundly desires that everyone share our faith, that everyone is Catholic.

If people are in a petri dish then God might as well not have bothered with a womb at all in which embryos could actually develop into people before birth.

Again, don’t all humans deserve a womb in which to grow as a basic human right?

One pt I will give you. Science will never prove the soul. As that’s something only faith can do.

You mean modern empiriometric science? Theology is a science.

God bless you and peace be with you always.

And to you, too

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Who came up with those definitions? You have to look deeper than one issue. Pro life certainly does not entail life only when found in the womb. And it is a misnomer to label everyone pro choice as pro abortion.

Pro choice means just what it says. Pro choice. And “pro life” as you define it should actually be called anti choice.

Believe it or not and I know you don’t believe it. But there are actually folks who while believing abortion should be safe and legal in certain cases for various reasons, would themselves never have an abortion and who believe in working to make them rare. That of course though partly entails making certain there are programs intact for life after birth. But one must get away from the Catholic Church’s rigid idea of “pro life” and look beyond the womb for that to occur. God bless you and peace.

Let’s change some words here and see how ridiculous this argument really is: “*There are actually folks who while believing that slavery should be safe and legal in certain cases for various reasons, would themselves never own a slave and who believe in working to make slave ownership rare.” *

Or how about: *There are actually folks who while believing child pornography should be safe and legal in certain cases for various reasons, would themselves never watch child pornography and who believe in working to make the use of child pornography rare." *

Yeah, right. Pro-choice IS pro-abortion. You are FOR allowing people to murder unborn children.

The only time anyone is ok with a horror being perpetuated on another person, even if they would never perpetuate that horror on someone themselves, is when the victim is still in the womb. Why is that? I think it’s just “out of sight, out mind.” We can’t see the baby, so we can pretend he’s not a real person deserving of legal protection.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[CMatt25]

Geremia, I’m having dificulty seeing where Christ mentioned the unborn in the verses you quoted from Matt 25. I see the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger showing up on doorsteps to let in, the sick to take care of and the prisoner. The social gospel to me includes for the greatest part serving these, and the poor and working not for war but for peace. I can’t find the word abortion anywhere.

I do find this however which arguably might be showing the death of the fetus is not **quite **as severe as the death of the mother who has already been born. Exodus 21:22-23, If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life.

Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Let’s change some words here and see how ridiculous this argument really is: “*There are actually folks who while believing that slavery should be safe and legal in certain cases for various reasons, would themselves never own a slave and who believe in working to make slave ownership rare.” *

Or how about: *There are actually folks who while believing child pornography should be safe and legal in certain cases for various reasons, would themselves never watch child pornography and who believe in working to make the use of child pornography rare." *

Yeah, right. Pro-choice IS pro-abortion. You are FOR allowing people to murder unborn children.

The only time anyone is ok with a horror being perpetuated on another person, even if they would never perpetuate that horror on someone themselves, is when the victim is still in the womb. Why is that? I think it’s just “out of sight, out mind.” We can’t see the baby, so we can pretend he’s not a real person deserving of legal protection.

In Christ,

Ellen

Ellen, check where you live, the laws, the various faiths and different beliefs within which that exist on this issue, and under what type of system of government you reside.

Your brother in Christ,
CMatt25

 

[ishii]

Cmat:

Perhaps Mother Theresa can shed light on your understanding of this issue:

" if a mother can kill her unborn child, then I can kill you and you can kill me"

Abortion is the unjust taking of a human life. Its wrong.

I hope that someday soon you’ll join us.

Ishii

 

[Major_Minor]

A point to consider here is that at this time, abortion is the law of the land. That will not change until the right case comes to the Supreme Court and then they agree to here it. How far do you think pro-life will get with judges appointed by a Democrat president? Not very.

Thanks to Mary Bobo and Etses Bob for answering the question I asked.

I assure you I will never vote pro-choice and I wasn’t just trying to be being clever or anything (Always a problem on the net: The possibility of someone presenting themselves as something they’re not)… I just honestly found that to be something I hadn’t heard a good answer for yet. Most Catholic teachings I find to be rock solid with the Bible and reason, but hadn’t heard a good answer to this one until now.

Again, thanks.