Abortion

[lil_flower_luv]

No. Birth control gives the choice to create or not create life. Abortion gives the choice to kill or not kill.

And neither choice should be ours to make. That is the point I am trying to make. We are not God, and therefore have no right to decide when to prevent life or welcome it. The good news is: God is looking out for us (and a whole lot more) and when it is not a convenient time to conceive a child (for married couples), He will remember that. Otherwise, the time to give life and take it away is in His hands, and it is not our place to try to change that.

 

[allhers]

Interesting. What is your point?

The point is that instead of giving us your silly opinions, why don’t you go and read some facts instead.

I’m so happy for you that you believe the CDC.

This is also on the CDC website:

Early History

…

In 1912, the modern birth-control movement began. Margaret Sanger (see box), a public health nurse concerned about the adverse health effects of frequent childbirth, miscarriages, and abortion, initiated efforts to circulate information about and provide access to contraception (9). In 1916, Sanger challenged the laws that suppressed the distribution of birth control information by opening in Brooklyn, New York, the first family planning clinic. The police closed her clinic, but the court challenges that followed established a legal precedent that allowed physicians to provide advice on contraception for health reasons. During the 1920s and 1930s, Sanger continued to promote family planning by opening more clinics and challenging legal restrictions. As a result, physicians gained the right to counsel patients and to prescribe contraceptive methods (10,11). By the 1930s, a few state health departments (e.g., North Carolina) and public hospitals had begun to provide family planning services.

cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4847a1.htm

Margaret Sanger, how wonderful wasn’t she the founder of Planned Parenthood?

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Then I really feel sorry for the baby killers!

They need our prayers and sacrifices. And those who have made the tragic decision to have abortions, especially those who have felt condemned for it by other Christians, need our love, understanding and compassion.You may have missed our sister, Limerick’s post when she mentioned going to confession.
When we are quick to heap the added burden of guilt on those whom Jesus suffered and died for- which is all of us sinners-then we are not understanding what happened at the Hour of Mercy when His Heart was pierced with a lance, and Blood and Water flowed out.** DIVINE MERCY ** saved us ALL from eternal darkness!
Our Lord taught Saint Faustina this prayer, "O Blood and Water, which gushed forth from the Heart of Jesus as a fountain of Mercy for us, I trust in You. (Diary,84) Amen!
Therefore, let us all, “Be merciful even as [our] heavenly Father is merciful.”(Luke 6:36)

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I do on all except this! It is murder and makes me sick to those who try to justify killing such an helpless thing!

Be gentle. “The pro-life movement is a movement of non-violence.”-Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priestsforlife. People who have abortions are going through a lot of pain and anger…the abortion did that to them. They don’t need to be condemned, but forgiven. You words will make them stray away from God’s arms, not come closer. Be gentle in your words. Be forgiving. “What would Jesus do?”

 

[fix]

1958 is an assertion that natural law exists. I presume one accepts the asertion of the Church if one has faith in the Church’s infallibility.

1960 tells us grace and revelation are needed to know what natural law says. So, how do we know someone asserting natural law has grace and revelation?

The point is the natural law can be known by reason. In fact, that is basically what it is…right reason. We all have it, but we can be confused.

 

[WillieWonka]

And neither choice should be ours to make. That is the point I am trying to make. We are not God, and therefore have no right to decide when to prevent life or welcome it. The good news is: God is looking out for us (and a whole lot more) and when it is not a convenient time to conceive a child (for married couples), He will remember that. Otherwise, the time to give life and take it away is in His hands, and it is not our place to try to change that.

Well, we should be accurate in describing those choices.

 

[WillieWonka]

The point is that instead of giving us your silly opinions, why don’t you go and read some facts instead.

I’m so happy for you that you believe the CDC.

This is also on the CDC website:

Early History

…

In 1912, the modern birth-control movement began. Margaret Sanger (see box), a public health nurse concerned about the adverse health effects of frequent childbirth, miscarriages, and abortion, initiated efforts to circulate information about and provide access to contraception (9). In 1916, Sanger challenged the laws that suppressed the distribution of birth control information by opening in Brooklyn, New York, the first family planning clinic. The police closed her clinic, but the court challenges that followed established a legal precedent that allowed physicians to provide advice on contraception for health reasons. During the 1920s and 1930s, Sanger continued to promote family planning by opening more clinics and challenging legal restrictions. As a result, physicians gained the right to counsel patients and to prescribe contraceptive methods (10,11). By the 1930s, a few state health departments (e.g., North Carolina) and public hospitals had begun to provide family planning services.

cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4847a1.htm

Margaret Sanger, how wonderful wasn’t she the founder of Planned Parenthood?

Yes, she did found PP. The CDC has a wealth of information available.

 

[WillieWonka]

The point is the natural law can be known by reason. In fact, that is basically what it is…right reason. We all have it, but we can be confused.

My question was whether NL could be determined by reason alone. 1958 simply asserts NL exists. 1960 says grace and revelation are necessary to deal with it. So, given 1960, are you saying reason alone is insufficient?

 

[allhers]

Yes, she did found PP. The CDC has a wealth of information available.

That’s okay, I’ll stick with the facts and Truth from sites like this:

www.all.org
www.hli.org
www.priestsforlife.org
www dot anything other than that one dot org lol

 

[allhers]

My question was whether NL could be determined by reason alone. 1958 simply asserts NL exists. 1960 says grace and revelation are necessary to deal with it. So, given 1960, are you saying reason alone is insufficient?

One could perhaps not be properly informed, one could possibly not have right reason, one could even be outright wrong. One could have a conscious that isn’t properly formed.

 

[fix]

My question was whether NL could be determined by reason alone. 1958 simply asserts NL exists. 1960 says grace and revelation are necessary to deal with it. So, given 1960, are you saying reason alone is insufficient?

It is “written on every heart” as in it is part of our nature. So, yes reason alone can know the natural law but it may be unclear to many people.

Please see the entire chapter:

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9
1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is *immutable *and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies

there is more here

 

[WillieWonka]

That’s okay, I’ll stick with the facts and Truth from sites like this:

www.all.org
www.hli.org
www.priestsforlife.org
www dot anything other than that one dot org lol

OK. We are all certainly free to choose.

 

[WillieWonka]

One could perhaps not be properly informed, one could possibly not have right reason, one could even be outright wrong. One could have a conscious that isn’t properly formed.

If a conscious mind is not properly formed, can it reason?

 

[allhers]

If a conscious mind is not properly formed, can it reason?

Not necessairly with right reason.

 

[WillieWonka]

It is “written on every heart” as in it is part of our nature. So, yes reason alone can know the natural law but it may be unclear to many people.

Please see the entire chapter:

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9
1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is *immutable *and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies

there is more here

OK. If reason alone can discern NL, how do you know you have correctly discerned it? You said faith and reason were necessary. So is faith necessary if reason alone can know NL?

 

[WillieWonka]

Not necessairly with right reason.

What is right reason?

 

[allhers]

You want an example?

Read this:

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=503140&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2007&Author=&Keyword=right+reason&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

…and read what fix provided for you too. Good stuff!! Excellent even.

 

[allhers]

I’m actually going to sign off for awhile to give you time to go and read some of the things that have been provided for you. It is pretty obvious from your fast posting that you aren’t taking the time necessary to read those things that everyone gives you. Have a nice day

 

[estesbob]

OK. If reason alone can discern NL, how do you know you have correctly discerned it? You said faith and reason were necessary. So is faith necessary if reason alone can know NL?

I dont now if i have properly discerned smething. that is why i depend on the teachngs of the church. the have done all the heavy lifiting and have 2,000 years of teachings and traditions to fall back on. Why should I try and discern natural law when the likes of Augustine and Aquinas have already done it for me?

 

[estesbob]

How is natural family planning different, by practicing it you are trying to prevent life.

Because it is not artifical.

Many traditional Catholics/Priests argue NFP is a sin as well, it might be natural but you are thinking “birth control”

They do? Thats news to me. Can you give us sme links?

.

A Catholic couple who practice NFP, throughout their entire marriage is not exactly open to life.

Again the key is that they are not using artifical means to prevent conception.