Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[limerick]

Why? (wrt your comment in red)

Labor unions picket businesses they think are unfair. Women picket businesses they think are being unfair. People constantly try to talk people into or out of decisions they think are wrong.

So why should women contemplating abortion have any different experience?

I am stating an opinion, St. Francis.

And we are free to follow our consciences and let women contemplating abortion know what a lot of doctors won’t tell them.

For example, and I have experienced this myself, the staff at an ob/gyn’s office will not say that a woman is “having a baby” until they find out that she wants to have the baby. They will say a woman is pregnant until then.

Yes, and this is a direct result of the evolution of thought and action with regard to abortion and childbirth. The terminology that “a woman is pregnant” is medically and biologically accurate and acceptable. In this way a woman who may be considering abortion will not have her possible intentions revealed to anyone who is not entitled to know. It seems like such a guy thing that you would rather hear, “She’s having a baby!” as if it were a direct reflection on a man’s virility.

Only if I have the expectation that they will change their minds will I be disappointed. Praying and working for changes in the law will not set me up for “up for disappointment and resentment” **if **they continue to disagree with me.

Good deal.

Is the Supreme Court not part of the government?

Is Roe, as a Supreme Court decision, a true reflection of what “society” wishes?

What do you mean, that abortion is “not always” harmful to the baby?

I answered this in another post.

Moreover, those who advocate that abortion be made illegal are doing so because of that very harm involved in the taking of the unborn child’s life. Medical procedures often involve risk, and that is something which should be left up to the person receiving the treatment (after being fully informed and having the normal medical regulations fulfilled in the facility itself). However, the taking of innocent human life is wrong and ought to be illegal, no matter the age or condition of the person whose life is being taken.
**
So the taking of “guilty” human life is acceptable?

But those lies did not help anyone to commit an immoral act.

Have you ever wondered how many abortions have taken place because women who were miserably pregnant knew the suggestion that “a baby will make you complete” or “the baby will bring you closer together” was an insulting, bald-faced lie?

Did I ever say that all of them had changed their minds? Don’t tell me that you are “putting words in my mouth!”

Why are you arguing about this? This is the only point on which I have agreed with you and you want to shred it? I don’t get you.

Women have no more of a “moral right” to have an abortion than a man has to rape a woman.

Perhaps not, but she does have a legal right to do so, and he does not.

You seem to think that a person’s having free will is some special phrase which then allows you to say that a person should be permitted to do anything they like after it. That is ridiculous. What would you say if a pedophile said, Well, I have free will, and I chose to exercise it? Would you say, Oh, well, then, of course it’s all right that you go around molesting children.

**The man would not be regarded as a pedophile UNLESS he exercised free will to molest a child. That is a perfect example of the range of free will. As I said, it may not be pretty, but these acts are born of free will. **

As I pointed out before, your experience doesn’t have any effect on the truth.

And as I pointed out before, my experience is my truth.

 

[limerick]

If the conscience is truly based on the teachings of Christ, then the person will not commit any evil acts, including abortion.
**
I disagree, for the simple fact that we are all human and do not live perfect lives.**

No one has the “right” to choose evil.

We’ve been through this; let’s move on.

Wise or kind or thoughtful?

A simple writing device to understate a point. Sorry you didn’t get it.

Evil is much much worse than unwise, unkind, or unthoughtful. Consider an act you are very sure is evil: Would you call rape *unwise? *Would you call murder

unkind? Would you call child molestation *unthoughtful? *

See previous response.

And would you say that people have a right to do these things?

**I will say people will do them whether they have the right to do them, the privilege of doing them, or an engraved invitation to do them. A motivated individual will succumb to immorality whether or not it’s kosher. **

And would you say they were following the teachings of Christ if they did those things?

You would have to ask them.

I don’t know what you mean by this.

**“Consequences attach” means that there will be consequences involved, either in this life or the next.

Limerick**

 

[St_Francis]

I am stating an opinion, St. Francis.

Is your opinion based on any stream of thought? You said that women should not be hindered or censured for their decision, and yet you probably approve of the other activities which I mentioned, such as picketing businesses which treat their employees badly.

Yes, and this is a direct result of the evolution of thought and action with regard to abortion and childbirth. The terminology that “a woman is pregnant” is medically and biologically accurate and acceptable. In this way a woman who may be considering abortion will not have her possible intentions revealed to anyone who is not entitled to know. It seems like such a guy thing that you would rather hear, “She’s having a baby!” as if it were a direct reflection on a man’s virility.

We have already separated the sex act from babies, now we are separating pregnancy from babies, and you call that evolution? I call it a manipulative abuse of the language and thus our way of thinking. It furthers the lie that abortion doesn’t really take a human life.

Is Roe, as a Supreme Court decision, a true reflection of what “society” wishes?

What??? I said: But “society” in the form of the government, is supposed to protect people from those who would do them harm.

I meant that society is supposed to protect the people from harm, like making laws against rape, murder, etc. Murder should, but currently does not, include *all *human beings, not just those who happen to have already been born.

[From the other post where you answered this] My point was that abortion is not always fatal to the fetus.

This is not true. As you have probably already figured out, we are talking about induced abortions which are intended to take the life of the unborn child. We are not talking about D&Es which are performed after a miscarriage to make sure that all was expelled during the miscarriage. We are not talking about spontaneous abortions, which are commonly known as miscarriages. *We are talking about those abortions which take a human life, and are thus always fatal to the unborn child. *

So the taking of “guilty” human life is acceptable?

If a man is trying to seriously harm or kill a woman, and her defense involves his death, she is not considered guilty of murder.

If the state takes the life of a convicted murderer, it is not considered murder.

Have you ever wondered how many abortions have taken place because women who were miserably pregnant knew the suggestion that “a baby will make you complete” or “the baby will bring you closer together” was an insulting, bald-faced lie?

So you are saying that the woman who chose to have an abortion would not have had an abortion had she not heard that having a baby would be a good idea?

Why are you arguing about this? This is the only point on which I have agreed with you and you want to shred it? I don’t get you.

All those italics made your comment look sarcastic. Sorry about that.

Perhaps not, but she does have a legal right to do so, and he does not.

So, before marital rape laws, it was all right for the husband to force himself on his wife? It wasn’t a bad thing for him to do until after those laws were passed?

The man would not be regarded as a pedophile UNLESS he exercised free will to molest a child. That is a perfect example of the range of free will. As I said, it may not be pretty, but these acts are born of free will.

You are using the whole free will thing to justify having an abortion, not working against abortion, and not trying to persuade a woman against having an abortion. Would you say that the same applies to a child molester?

And as I pointed out before, my experience is my truth.

Your experience is your experience. Truth is truth. There is no such thing as “your truth.”
Either something is true or false, and one’s opinions, experiences, or thoughts do not affect truth in any way.

 

[St_Francis]

If the conscience is truly based on the teachings of Christ, then the person will not commit any evil acts, including abortion.

I disagree, for the simple fact that we are all human and do not live perfect lives.

1. Women who choose abortion, operating in response to their own individual consciences, must be permitted to undergo the procedure without hindrance or censure.
2. Conscience is not a god. Choosing evil is no right.
3. What if conscience is based on the teachings of God’s son?
4. If the conscience is truly based on the teachings of Christ, then the person will not commit any evil acts, including abortion.
5. I disagree, for the simple fact that we are all human and do not live perfect lives.

You see that first you based the “right” of a woman to choose abortion unhindered and uncensured on the fact that she was acting in accord with her conscience. it was then pointed out that consciences were not always right, to which you replied asking what about if the conscience were based on the teachings of Christ?

Now, you can’t have it both ways. Either the conscience is based on the teachings of Christ, or not. It is only insofar as the conscience *is *based on Christ’s teachings that the person will act in a good way. It is where the conscience *deviates *from Christ’s teachings that a person commits bad acts.

No one has the “right” to choose evil.

We’ve been through this; let’s move on.

Let’s not move on. You seem to be saying that people have a “right” based solely on man-made laws. So, before there were laws against it, people had the right to discriminate against people based on race, is that what you are saying?–that the fact that it was morally wrong did not in any way diminish that right?

I will say people will do them whether they have the right to do them, the privilege of doing them, or an engraved invitation to do them. A motivated individual will succumb to immorality whether or not it’s kosher.

You wrote, Choosing evil is anyone’s right. I asked, And would you say that people have a right to do these things?

My question was rhetorical (Maybe each of us is using too many writing devices!). You had already stated that you thought that people have a right to choose evil.

Now you are backing off that. So what do you *really *think: people have a right to choose evil, or people do choose evil whether they have a right to do so or not?

You would have to ask them. [if they were following the teachings of Christ if they did those things]

You seem to not really understand what it means to follow someone’s teachings, and I mean this about anyone’s teachings. If the teacher teaches X and the follower does the exact opposite, would you say that person was following the teachings? The teachings exist independently of any one person’s actions or interpretations. Another person can consider the teachings, and consider the action, and see if the action is in accord with the teachings or not.

“Consequences attach” means that there will be consequences involved, either in this life or the next.

And one of those consequences might be that one is censured by others for their actions, another act of free will, but one which you yourself censure.

 

[limerick]

PART 1

Is your opinion based on any stream of thought? You said that women should not be hindered or censured for their decision, and yet you probably approve of the other activities which I mentioned, such as picketing businesses which treat their employees badly.

If people choose to picket, it is within the scope of their legal rights. They have made a decision that their employer treats them unfairly and they want to take some action to rectify the situation. If a woman decides to have an abortion, it is within the scope of her legal rights. She has made a decision that she cannot continue her pregnancy for any number of a zillion reasons (and no matter how much you beg, I will not enumerate them here), and so she is taking action to rectify the situation. Neither the picketing group nor the woman procuring an abortion needs to be chastised or threatened or mocked or ridiculed. They have undertaken these actions based on their beliefs and what their consciences dictate. If any civil or common law is broken during the course of these actions, the participants will face legal consequences. If any moral laws are broken during the course of these actions, each individual will be held accountable by God. No further judgment is necessary.

We have already separated the sex act from babies, now we are separating pregnancy from babies, and you call that evolution? I call it a manipulative abuse of the language and thus our way of thinking. It furthers the lie that abortion doesn’t really take a human life.

**No one has separated the sex act from babies (and I find it interesting that you made no mention of the fact that we have separated love from the sex act), and no one has separated pregnancy from babies. As time marches on language changes, colloquialisms change, implications and inferences change. It’s called “living language”. If you can’t get on board with it, question yourself as to why. Don’t question me. **

What??? I said: But “society” in the form of the government, is supposed to protect people from those who would do them harm.

I read your remark to mean that society - the voters - are supposed to protect people from those who would do harm, by voting to enact legislation. I understand that Roe was not a matter of society voting - it was a matter of the Supreme Court justices making a decision.

I meant that society is supposed to protect the people from harm, like making laws against rape, murder, etc. Murder should, but currently does not, include *all *human beings, not just those who happen to have already been born.

Yes, the law protects those on this side of the uterus.

This is not true. As you have probably already figured out, we are talking about induced abortions which are intended to take the life of the unborn child. We are not talking about D&Es which are performed after a miscarriage to make sure that all was expelled during the miscarriage. We are not talking about spontaneous abortions, which are commonly known as miscarriages. *We are talking about those abortions which take a human life, and are thus always fatal to the unborn child. *

Check this out:

circleofprayer.com/abortion-survival-testimonies.html

These are not spontaneous abortions.

If a man is trying to seriously harm or kill a woman, and her defense involves his death, she is not considered guilty of murder.

Yay.

If the state takes the life of a convicted murderer, it is not considered murder.

Yay.

So you are saying that the woman who chose to have an abortion would not have had an abortion had she not heard that having a baby would be a good idea?

I am saying that many, many women who are grappling with an unexpected pregnancy are already in volatile marriages, violent relationships, dire straits; are addicts or alcoholics; are homeless, etc. I won’t even go down the Rape Road on this one. When desperate women hear that sing-songy, insulting, incredibly naive platitude that “a baby is a gift!” or “wait till he gets here - you’ll see!”, they run, they don’t walk, to the nearest abortion facility. I know for a fact that this happens, as I’ve been on the inside of several procedures (my own and those of a few friends). So, yes: I am saying that a do-gooder who is trying to influence the outcome of a pregnancy by making inappropriate and impossible promises to a woman in these circumstances is hastening abortion rather than averting it.

All those italics made your comment look sarcastic. Sorry about that.

No big deal.

 

[limerick]

PART 2

So, before marital rape laws, it was all right for the husband to force himself on his wife? It wasn’t a bad thing for him to do until after those laws were passed?

**The National Center for Victims of Crime reports the following with regard to the laws on spousal rape:

“The states made progress in the past 20 years toward eliminating exemptions for sex offenders who are married to their victims. However, differences in the treatment of rape of a spouse from that of non-spousal rape remain. These include: reporting requirements, requirements that the offender use force or threat of force, and the fact that some offenses contain exemptions for spouses. States may want to consider the status of their spousal rape laws and amend them to create protections for victims of spousal rape equal to those for other victims of sexual assault.”**

States vary in their interpretation of the language, the time frames within which a victim must report the crime, the question of battery and what instrument may have been used, etc. I’m not satisfied that spousal rape laws are consistent in providing protection for spouses of either sex. The question is much more complex than the one you are asking. I cannot answer it without attending first year law school.

You are using the whole free will thing to justify having an abortion, not working against abortion, and not trying to persuade a woman against having an abortion. Would you say that the same applies to a child molester?

I am not “using the whole free will thing”, nor am I trying to justify anyone’s having an abortion. I am simply saying a) we all have God-given free will, sometimes used for the good, sometimes used for ill; b) I neither justify, endorse, nor advise abortion, as I feel that another’s actions are strictly none of my business; c) I neither work against abortion nor try to persuade a woman to behave according to my conscience rather than her own. I do not understand your question with regard to a child molester. A child molester is, in our current society, a criminal. A woman having an abortion is not.

Your experience is your experience. Truth is truth. There is no such thing as “your truth.”
**
If I do not incorporate my experiences into my own moral code, then I am an idiot.
You have your version of the truth by which you live. I have mine. We will never agree on anything different. **

Either something is true or false, and one’s opinions, experiences, or thoughts do not affect truth in any way.

**Then how can anyone experience maturity? Are you going to try to tell me that your contemporary ideas about cowboys and Indians are exactly the same as they were when you were seven years old?

Limerick**

 

[limerick]

1. Women who choose abortion, operating in response to their own individual consciences, must be permitted to undergo the procedure without hindrance or censure.
2. Conscience is not a god. Choosing evil is no right.
3. What if conscience is based on the teachings of God’s son?
4. If the conscience is truly based on the teachings of Christ, then the person will not commit any evil acts, including abortion.
5. I disagree, for the simple fact that we are all human and do not live perfect lives.

You see that first you based the “right” of a woman to choose abortion unhindered and uncensured on the fact that she was acting in accord with her conscience. it was then pointed out that consciences were not always right, to which you replied asking what about if the conscience were based on the teachings of Christ?

Now, you can’t have it both ways. Either the conscience is based on the teachings of Christ, or not. It is only insofar as the conscience *is *based on Christ’s teachings that the person will act in a good way. It is where the conscience *deviates *from Christ’s teachings that a person commits bad acts.

Let’s not move on. You seem to be saying that people have a “right” based solely on man-made laws. So, before there were laws against it, people had the right to discriminate against people based on race, is that what you are saying?–that the fact that it was morally wrong did not in any way diminish that right?

You wrote, Choosing evil is anyone’s right. I asked, And would you say that people have a right to do these things?

My question was rhetorical (Maybe each of us is using too many writing devices!). You had already stated that you thought that people have a right to choose evil.

Now you are backing off that. So what do you *really *think: people have a right to choose evil, or people do choose evil whether they have a right to do so or not?

You seem to not really understand what it means to follow someone’s teachings, and I mean this about anyone’s teachings. If the teacher teaches X and the follower does the exact opposite, would you say that person was following the teachings? The teachings exist independently of any one person’s actions or interpretations. Another person can consider the teachings, and consider the action, and see if the action is in accord with the teachings or not.

And one of those consequences might be that one is censured by others for their actions, another act of free will, but one which you yourself censure.

**
When quotes are removed from their original context, as they are in the response box, the arguments are moved a generation further down the line until the original questions are totally lost. I would like to address them one at a time if you don’t mind; I’ve been here at the computer all night while my dog howled to go outside. I never even had any dinner.

I can tell you this: you and I will never agree on this topic. We can go around and around and you will be firm and I will be firm and before you know it we will have each lost a couple of 24-hour days behind a senseless debate. Those are days we can’t get back. Maybe it would be better if you spent those days sharing your good tidings with pregnant women considering abortion and I can spend my days helping my friend in Texas who has asked me to help him as his wife is released from (name removed by moderator)atient rehab. He asked, St. F. I won’t push, but I do have my own little mission which I’m good at. And it comes from my e-x-p-e-r-i-e-n-c-e as a drunk and an addict. I think God would be “pleased” if we pursued these activities in lieu of p*ssing in the wind on this forum.

Now, if you want to go one question at a time I’ll go with you, but I don’t have time to squander going back looking for post number 592 to see how you phrased something literally - the extended debate here highlights the shortcomings of the forum design.

You can p.m. me if you like. I think you’re a smart guy and I know you are passionate about your position, and I respect that. Well, whaddya think?

Limerick**

 

[St_Francis]

**
When quotes are removed from their original context, as they are in the response box, the arguments are moved a generation further down the line until the original questions are totally lost. I would like to address them one at a time if you don’t mind; I’ve been here at the computer all night while my dog howled to go outside. I never even had any dinner.

I can tell you this: you and I will never agree on this topic. We can go around and around and you will be firm and I will be firm and before you know it we will have each lost a couple of 24-hour days behind a senseless debate. Those are days we can’t get back. Maybe it would be better if you spent those days sharing your good tidings with pregnant women considering abortion and I can spend my days helping my friend in Texas who has asked me to help him as his wife is released from (name removed by moderator)atient rehab. He asked, St. F. I won’t push, but I do have my own little mission which I’m good at. And it comes from my e-x-p-e-r-i-e-n-c-e as a drunk and an addict. I think God would be “pleased” if we pursued these activities in lieu of p*ssing in the wind on this forum.

Now, if you want to go one question at a time I’ll go with you, but I don’t have time to squander going back looking for post number 592 to see how you phrased something literally - the extended debate here highlights the shortcomings of the forum design.

You can p.m. me if you like. I think you’re a smart guy and I know you are passionate about your position, and I respect that. Well, whaddya think?

Limerick**

Well, first of all, I’m a gal and not a guy

No problem–I’m sure we’ll end up discussing this or another topic again

I did want to clarify my point about experience, which I will do in reply to your previous post, but I do want to say that I think it’s admirable that you are helping others as they enter into recovery, (which does make me think of another point to make wrt our discussion, but I don’t want to drive you nuts when you are doing other things, so I will save it for another time, maybe make another thread in a while).

I generally do not take a discussion into a pm sort of situation unless it enters into the realm of personal and individual, a counseling type of situation, iyswim, altho I can sympathize with the frustration about the quoting. That’s a tricky one because it can also be difficult when there are 10,000 smaller and smaller quote boxes.

I will pray for you and your friend and his wife.

 

[St_Francis]

Either something is true or false, and one’s opinions, experiences, or thoughts do not affect truth in any way.

**Then how can anyone experience maturity? Are you going to try to tell me that your contemporary ideas about cowboys and Indians are exactly the same as they were when you were seven years old?

Limerick**

Just quickly, for clarification, what I mean is that truth is outside of us, so what we experience does not affect it. For example, just because Joe is color-blind and experiences the world in black and white doesn’t mean there is no color. Naturally as one matures, hopefully one gets a fuller idea of the truth, but the truth was out there to have a fuller idea of it gotten.

 

[limerick]

Well, first of all, I’m a gal and not a guy

No problem–I’m sure we’ll end up discussing this or another topic again

I did want to clarify my point about experience, which I will do in reply to your previous post, but I do want to say that I think it’s admirable that you are helping others as they enter into recovery, (which does make me think of another point to make wrt our discussion, but I don’t want to drive you nuts when you are doing other things, so I will save it for another time, maybe make another thread in a while).

I generally do not take a discussion into a pm sort of situation unless it enters into the realm of personal and individual, a counseling type of situation, iyswim, altho I can sympathize with the frustration about the quoting. That’s a tricky one because it can also be difficult when there are 10,000 smaller and smaller quote boxes.

I will pray for you and your friend and his wife.

**
The gender thing always snags me and I apologize for guessing incorrectly (a 50-50 chance isn’t much to hang a bet on!).

I support you in your position and I understand your respect for life. I don’t know if you are employed, but you would have made a heck of a prosecutor. I will continue to see you around the forum and will check out your posts because you are clear, concise and fair. Thanks for the food for thought.

Limerick**

 

[SteveGC]

Steve:

They only “must be permitted” in the sense that this “permission” comes from man, not God. God does not permit this, and so those faithful to God should attempt to prohibit women from this procedure. Keep in mind that EVERYONE is bound by God’s moral code, whether they recognize and accept it, or not.

Limerick:

God does permit this: He has not once intervened in the act of abortion that I know of.

Yes, of course God allows (permits) abortion to happen, just as any good or evil act. But when you say that a woman “must be permitted” to have an abortion, it’s the “must be” that is in question. I suppose I was just trying to make the point that only in the eyes of human-based civil law must a woman be permitted. And most pro-life people would agree, and do not intervene outside the scope of the civil law. But, if you suggest that people should leave her alone and not intervene at all, then I respectfully disagree. We see it as murder, regardless of what human law calls it. God calls it murder. That trumps any human law. So, the question is, do we follow God, or man?

Steve:

And while we all wait for laws to be changed, those who are offended should also not be afraid of establishing a physical presence before these women, to charitably persuade them to choose life for their child.

Limerick:

They can do what they will to follow their individual or collective conscience, but they cannot be surprised if met by frustration, anger or violence.

And what if they ARE surprised? What difference does it make? Because we’re talking about murder, it’s still worth the intervention regardless of the consequences to those who intervene. So long as we are intervening within the boundaries of God’s law.

Steve:

Yes, and so it goes…defining morality by the law of man. A dangerous endeavor, that ultimately will lead you nowhere. Morality is NOT defined by civil law. We are fortunate that most civil law is in accord with God’s moral law, thanks to the focus on God that this country’s forefathers maintained. Abortion is the modern exception, and none of us should rest until it is proclaimed to be murder, as God proclaims it to be.

"None of us should rest … " There it is, that edict mentality again.

Again? Where was it before? “none of us should rest” is not my version of a battle cry to the pro-life masses, L. It’s not a call to arms to go marching into clinics with Bibles in one hand and a stick in the other. I don’t advocate such things, although I understand and sympathize with all types of intervention which remains within the scope of God’s law. My statement is simply a statement against apathy and tolerance, against the “live and let live” mentality in the face of murder, against the notion that truth and morals are subjective entities.

Steve:

Of course there is disappointment and resentment involved when human morality is confronted by divine morality. Those who understand that morality is of God, not man, and who pit God’s law against the law of man are quite used to disappointment and resentment…and yet still fight. Why do you think that is?

Limerick:

I can’t muster up much interest in why that is.

Of course you aren’t interested…since you hold to moral relativism, it makes no sense to you that it is God who prescribes morals, not us.

Steve:

Looks like a definition of “harmful” is in order. It’s not confined to physical pain or suffering. Harm is anything that prohibits innocent human life. So, yes…abortion is ALWAYS harmful to the baby. And it is ALWAYS harmful to God, in the sense that it offends Him greatly.

Limerick:

My point was that abortion is not always fatal to the fetus. Come on, pro-lifers, share this good news with SteveGC!

Share what news? That some abortions are botched? Praise the Lord that they are. But abortion is abortion, a failed abortion is a failed abortion, not an abortion. You said not all “abortions” were harmful, and I guess what you meant was “not all attempted abortions are successful”. To which I’ll say, the immorality of abortion is not postponed until the baby dies…it’s there as soon as the intent to kill is in place. That happens the moment consent to kill is given.

Steve:

It’s one thing to be misled about your “happiness”, and quite another to be misled about morality. The concept of “completeness” of one’s life as offered by the birth of a child is immaterial to the right of the unborn child to live.

Limerick:

Your response, though thoughtful, does not apply to the point I was making in my post.

Perhaps, but I suppose I thought you were trying to justify the decision to abort based off an emotional response to a “lie”. The “lie” is actually only an opinion, it is not a deliberate statement of falsehood which you seem to want to make it. Perhaps it seemed like a grievous lie to some, but it was simply a mode of encouragement which some proclaimed to be a “lie” when the encouragement failed, and I would suggest that many of them allowed their subjective moral compass to guide them into having the abortion.

Steve:

That’s only true if morality is relative, which it is not. Morality is objective, of God, and is therefore everyone’s business. As soon as someone decides to act immorally, those around them are called to intervene and help guide them toward proper morality

Limerick:

I simply disagree. I will not intervene unless summoned or asked.

You disagree that morality is objective? or that God’s people are called to intervene in the face of immorality? Or both? By the way, intervene can simply mean prayer. That’s the extent right now of my intervention with abortion. And, you may not hear the summons, L…but God is calling.

 

[SteveGC]

Question for you L

If you became convinced that abortion was murder in all cases, whether or not civil law agreed with that fact, would you advocate, as you do now, that a woman must be left alone in her decision to abort?

 

[KDB]

No one has the “right” to choose evil.

This is pivotal to the topic of this thread and a thousand other debates.
The existence of my free will proves it to be God’s will as clearly as any other detail of Creation.
This disregard for human free will is responsible for many of the horrible things done in the name of Christ over the centuries.

 

[fix]

No one has the “right” to choose evil.

They do not get it, because they do not want to get it. Freedom does not equal license. The abuse of freedom is a proof of free will just as sickness is a proof of health.

 

[St_Francis]

**
The gender thing always snags me and I apologize for guessing incorrectly (a 50-50 chance isn’t much to hang a bet on!).**
Well, considering my screen name, it’s not too surprising!

I support you in your position and I understand your respect for life. I don’t know if you are employed, but you would have made a heck of a prosecutor. I will continue to see you around the forum and will check out your posts because you are clear, concise and fair. Thanks for the food for thought.

Thanks very much! I am totally into crime shows and books, esp the ones with lawyers! As long as they don’t get too weird with their crimes. Guess if you indulge for 30 years or so, you pick up some of it!

See ya soon, hope all goes well in TX!

 

[royal_archer]

…

Devout Catholics will therefore always take the position that our morals can and should be imposed upon all of humanity, because we faithfully represent God’s morals, and we are called to not only follow these morals, but also seek justice for all those who are victimized by the immorality of others. Moral relativists will always stand aside and just let people “choose” to do good or evil as their own moral codes dictate, and only get involved if they “break the law”. Limerick, I know you do not advocate abortion, and I commend you for that. I do. But by your believing morality is unique for each person, you are saying that man-made laws are our moral compass. This type of morality is based on a fallen human, and ever-changing doctrine of good and evil. This is NOT of God, but it IS of a spirit (and not a good one).
…

I don’t fully agree with you on this one. There are two levels of morals. Those that directly impact others and those that do not. We as catholics do not believe in forceing people to attend church There are other things that we see as moral issues where we educate and push but do not use coercion or force. How ever when those moral issues deal with harming another, Murder (including abortion) stealing, etc. We do approve of force to protect the innocent.

 

[limerick]

I don’t fully agree with you on this one. There are two levels of morals. Those that directly impact others and those that do not. We as catholics do not believe in forceing people to attend church There are other things that we see as moral issues where we educate and push but do not use coercion or force. How ever when those moral issues deal with harming another, Murder (including abortion) stealing, etc. We do approve of force to protect the innocent.

**
Force to what extent? Bombings? Hostage-taking? Murder?

Limerick**

 

[royal_archer]

**
Force to what extent? Bombings? Hostage-taking? Murder?

Limerick**

While those are tactics that have been used by police, they weren’t the ones I was thinking of. Try fines, jail, etc.

 

[SteveGC]

I don’t fully agree with you on this one. There are two levels of morals. Those that directly impact others and those that do not. We as catholics do not believe in forceing people to attend church There are other things that we see as moral issues where we educate and push but do not use coercion or force. How ever when those moral issues deal with harming another, Murder (including abortion) stealing, etc. We do approve of force to protect the innocent.

Good point. Actually, I was not using the phrase “imposed upon” to mean by force or coercion per se. What I meant is that God’s moral code is supposed to be the standard by all humans, and therefore devout followers of God are called to make this moral code known to all. In some cases through education, in some cases through force, but always within the boundaries of His law.

 

[limerick]

While those are tactics that have been used by police, they weren’t the ones I was thinking of. Try fines, jail, etc.

**
Can you explain the fine structure for the offenses? Can you describe the length of the sentences?

Please don’t think bombings are limited to the police. A bomb was left on the women’s healthcare property where my daughter works. A robot had to retrieve it. The local police, the sheriff’s department, the FBI and Homeland Security were all called to the scene. No one could drive their cars home. The defusing of this bomb went well into the night. The person who left it there was apprehended and sentenced to 40 years in prison. He was, and I suppose still is, a pro-life advocate.

Limerick**