Barack Obama addressing Christians

[Luis_Santiago]

It is the soul that gives life to the body and we believe that a soul is given to each individual at the moment of conception, only God would know how many souls were necessary. Just as God creates life, only God can end that life.

Now, just because some men (and women of course) have deceided that they know how to play at being “god”, it still doesn’t give them the right to be God.

A person is truly dead when the soul leaves the body, in both cases, at conception and at death, only God knows when that moment is. We really ought to leave it up to HIM and quit all this nonsense of trying to determine, to our own satisfation, and curosity, and for evil intensions, (taking a life) to determine at what point that is.

Right. That’s the Catholic teaching, but my point is that this is not something that will convince anyone that isn’t Catholic. If the US was predominantly Catholic, this argument would work. But this isn’t the case.

See, I personally think that when the good Lord settled Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and commanded them about staying away from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, remember that from Genesis? Chapter 2 (He said, from that tree you shall not eat because the moment you do you are surely doomed to die.) Well, man didn’t listen then and he still isn’t listening now. STAY AWAY FROM THAT TREE or YOU’RE GOING TO BE THE DEATH OF US ALL!!!

Wait, so are you saying we should avoid knowledge?

At conception.

Right, that’s the Catholic teaching, that God knows what will happen to the blastula and so if it will turn into twins then God gives it two souls and if it combines with another blastula then the soul occupies both blastulas until they merge. While this reasoning is fine for Catholics, again, it’s not something that will convince non-Catholics. If a Muslim told you you had to believe something because it’s in the Koran, you wouldn’t listen to them either.

 

[allhers]

Look Luis, I am Catholic and I know that God knows things that we don’t understand, and just because someone else doesn’t understand that doesn’t mean that I need to stop saying it.

I am not trying, as you are, to just go along with the crowd. Let your light shine before all, remember those words? You don’t hide your light under a basket. You proclaim the Truth from the rooftops.

No wonder so many are so lost, when we, who know the truth, want to go along with them instead and try to do things their way. Why not just simply, as Fr. Corapi always says, tell them the truth, eventually it’ll sink in.

The truth doesn’t change just because someone doesn’t believe it.

 

[Biggie]

Right, that’s the Catholic teaching, that God knows what will happen to the blastula and so if it will turn into twins then God gives it two souls and if it combines with another blastula then the soul occupies both blastulas until they merge. While this reasoning is fine for Catholics, again, it’s not something that will convince non-Catholics. If a Muslim told you you had to believe something because it’s in the Koran, you wouldn’t listen to them either.

Are we talking souls? I thought you asked when did life begin. Certainly that reasoning is fine for anyone rational.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Look Luis, I am Catholic and I know that God knows things that we don’t understand, and just because someone else doesn’t understand that doesn’t mean that I need to stop saying it.

I am not trying, as you are, to just go along with the crowd. Let your light shine before all, remember those words? You don’t hide your light under a basket. You proclaim the Truth from the rooftops.

On the contrary, I’m trying to determine how best to convince others that don’t share our beliefs. I want to know whether Catholic arguments surrounding abortion depend on our beliefs regarding the Bible, Catholic theologians, the Vatican, etc., or whether these arguments can be used to convince secular opponents. In order to change abortion laws in the US, we need to either convert a majority of the country to Catholicism (unlikely), or use arguments that are accessible to secular opponents.

No wonder so many are so lost, when we, who know the truth, want to go along with them instead and try to do things their way. Why not just simply, as Fr. Corapi always says, tell them the truth, eventually it’ll sink in.

The truth doesn’t change just because someone doesn’t believe it.

This isn’t what St. Paul did. In the days of the early Church, he changed the emphasis of its teaching greatly in order to make Christianity more accessible to the European pagans. He went along with many of the European customs and traditions in order to provide them with a faith that accommodated their culture and values. If a non-religious person runs into many different people, all claiming to be voicing the truth and all saying different things, how does he recognize the truth?

Are we talking souls? I thought you asked when did life begin. Certainly that reasoning is fine for anyone rational.

My point was that, identical twins result from a single conception. However, at conception there is only one zygote, not two. So there is no way of knowing how many human lives begin at a conception without invoking theological arguments, ie, “only God knows”.

In addition, a chimera can result from two zygotes merging, each of which was conceived separately. In this case, one person results from two conceptions. So when did this person’s life begin?

 

[Biggie]

My point was that, identical twins result from a single conception. However, at conception there is only one zygote, not two. So there is no way of knowing how many human lives begin at a conception without invoking theological arguments, ie, “only God knows”.

In addition, a chimera can result from two zygotes merging, each of which was conceived separately. In this case, one person results from two conceptions. So when did this person’s life begin?

In the first instance, I would return to the observation that an abundance cannot be used to prove a negative. The fact that two lives resulted where one was anticipated does not prove that no life was present. The reason the argument is pressed, however, is to make the point that since two lives were present when only one should be expected, no life at all must have existed at that point in the development. It is a non-sequitur.

As to chimeras, to my knowledge this does not occur in the human species without immoral intervention.The intervention producing a chimera is immoral in as much as it does not respect the dignity of the human being, just as abortion fails to respect that dignity.

 

[Newbie2]

You are absolutely right. However, you will never be able to convince someone your arguments are correct unless you base them on principles that he agrees with.

.

You don’t win many arguments, do you?

If you cannot argue your position without the other person ageeing on the principles, you’ll never win an argument with someone who you completely disagree with. Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying, it doesn’t make sense to me to concede part of your argument just because whoever you’re debating with doesn’t accept your prinicples or premise on which you base your arguments.

To do so is to, IHMO, demonstrate that your argument is weak in the first place or second, that you’re more interested in agreement than advancing your position. That’s not to say that the goal is to “win”, but in politics, you cannot advance your thoughts or positions regardless of your agenda unless you “win”.

 

[allhers]

**

On the contrary, I’m trying to determine how best to convince others that don’t share our beliefs. I want to know whether Catholic arguments surrounding abortion depend on our beliefs regarding the Bible, Catholic theologians, the Vatican, etc., or whether these arguments can be used to convince secular opponents. In order to change abortion laws in the US, we need to either convert a majority of the country to Catholicism (unlikely), or use arguments that are accessible to secular opponents**.

**

Well, again we disagree but thats no surprise to me, in my thought, the way to convince them is to pray and fast and keep telling them the truth anyway.

**

Luis_Santiago:
**This isn’t what St. Paul did. In the days of the early Church, he changed the emphasis of its teaching greatly in order to make Christianity more accessible to the European pagans. He went along with many of the European customs and traditions in order to provide them with a faith that accommodated their culture and values. If a non-religious person runs into many different people, all claiming to be voicing the truth and all saying different things, how does he recognize the truth?
**

**

St. Paul preached Jesus to them, the TRUTH. In MY own personal life, as I am sure with everyone else in the world, we all run into many different people, all claiming to be voicing the truth and yet saying many different things, how did I recognize the truth? How did you?**

 

[Luis_Santiago]

In the first instance, I would return to the observation that an abundance cannot be used to prove a negative. The fact that two lives resulted where one was anticipated does not prove that no life was present. The reason the argument is pressed, however, is to make the point that since two lives were present when only one should be expected, no life at all must have existed at that point in the development. It is a non-sequitur.

No, my point is that identical twins are an example of asexual human reproduction. Admittedly, this is fairly rare and can only happen at a very early stage in life, but it is still reproduction and it is still asexual. If life begins at conception, and this life divided asexually with no conception, how do you explain that?

As to chimeras, to my knowledge this does not occur in the human species without immoral intervention.The intervention producing a chimera is immoral in as much as it does not respect the dignity of the human being, just as abortion fails to respect that dignity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics

You don’t win many arguments, do you?

I just won the one with Biggie about chimeras.

If you cannot argue your position without the other person ageeing on the principles, you’ll never win an argument with someone who you completely disagree with. Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying, it doesn’t make sense to me to concede part of your argument just because whoever you’re debating with doesn’t accept your prinicples or premise on which you base your arguments.

Sure you can. If I have a wife, and I’m trying to convince her we should buy a Jeep Cherokee, I might want to buy it because Mr. T. drives one. However, my hypothetical wife would never accept this argument. But if I have other reasons for wanting the Jeep, which may also be part of why I want it, I should use those reasons when trying to convince her, because I know she could agree with the principles behind them.

To do so is to, IHMO, demonstrate that your argument is weak in the first place or second, that you’re more interested in agreement than advancing your position. That’s not to say that the goal is to “win”, but in politics, you cannot advance your thoughts or positions regardless of your agenda unless you “win”.

And even if you “win” as the Republicans did in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004, abortion may be just as legal at the end of the administration as it was at the beginning. We’ve got to come up with a better solution. This just isn’t working.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Well, again we disagree but thats no surprise to me, in my thought, the way to convince them is to pray and fast and keep telling them the truth anyway.

Abortion has been legal for the entirety of my life. Prayer just isn’t doing a whole lot on the legal level. St. Paul didn’t spend all his time praying that pagans would be converted, he spent a lot of it coming up with new ways to convert pagans too.

St. Paul preached Jesus to them, the TRUTH. In MY own personal life, as I am sure with everyone else in the world, we all run into many different people, all claiming to be voicing the truth and yet saying many different things, how did I recognize the truth? How did you?

You probably just went with whatever faith your parents taught you. Same as me. Same as like 90% of the people in the world.

 

[elts1956]

Right. That’s the Catholic teaching, but my point is that this is not something that will convince anyone that isn’t Catholic. If the US was predominantly Catholic, this argument would work. But this isn’t the case.

Wait, so are you saying we should avoid knowledge?

Right, that’s the Catholic teaching, that God knows what will happen to the blastula and so if it will turn into twins then God gives it two souls and if it combines with another blastula then the soul occupies both blastulas until they merge. While this reasoning is fine for Catholics, again, it’s not something that will convince non-Catholics. If a Muslim told you you had to believe something because it’s in the Koran, you wouldn’t listen to them either.

Luis, why are you concerned about the soul of the Muslims and the non Catholics who have not yet been converted. Perhaps they dwell in invincible ignorance and it isn’t up to us to judge their souls, but we can judge their actions if they are against Church teaching.

Worry about that 54% of Catholics who should know better, but still voted the pro death party this past Presidential election. I think you love to argue for argument’s sake.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Luis, why are you concerned about the soul of the Muslims and the non Catholics who have not yet been converted. Perhaps they dwell in invincible ignorance and it isn’t up to us to judge their souls, but we can judge their actions if they are against Church teaching.

Of course, this is similar logic the Muslims use when they condemn the US for allowing people to say bad things about Islam and not putting them in jail or something. The prospect of us doing that is extremely remote, and it just makes them look ignorant for understanding us so poorly.

Worry about that 54% of Catholics who should know better, but still voted the pro death party this past Presidential election. I think you love to argue for argument’s sake.

This may be true, but it doesn’t make me wrong. And if you haven’t figured it out by now, I’m one of those 54% of Catholics you refer to, so good luck with getting me to do that. To imply that Obama is “radically pro-death” is to imply that he spends a significant amount of time each day trying to figure out how to kill more people. In fact, other than reversing the Mexico City policy, he’s done virtually nothing about abortion since he was elected. And the policy of the US is already to not fund abortion overseas. The Mexico City policy goes a step further, and denies funding to any organization that has anything to do with abortions. Many groups such as the UNFPA receive funding from the US (or at least they do now that Obama is president) and give advice regarding abortions, although they are prohibited from actually using US funding to perform abortions. The Mexico City policy pulls ALL funding from the UNFPA, because of the advice they give, even though in some areas like South Africa, they’re required by law to mention abortion when counseling pregnant teenagers, for instance. The Mexico City policy is just an excuse to stop using US money to fund poverty programs in third-world countries, while feeling good about it. It’s dishonest and self-deceptive, and I think it’s a good thing that Obama rescinded it. After all, the UNFPA has prevented some 5 million abortions in China because of their recommendation of other methods of birth control.

 

[Newbie2]

Sure you can. If I have a wife, and I’m trying to convince her we should buy a Jeep Cherokee, I might want to buy it because Mr. T. drives one. However, my hypothetical wife would never accept this argument. But if I have other reasons for wanting the Jeep, which may also be part of why I want it, I should use those reasons when trying to convince her, because I know she could agree with the principles behind them.

And even if you “win” as the Republicans did in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004, abortion may be just as legal at the end of the administration as it was at the beginning. We’ve got to come up with a better solution. This just isn’t working.

I agree it isn’t working. However, in politics you have to win control in order to be able to make any significant changes. And control in the case of aboriton means having control long enough for the pro-abortion supreme court judges to retire or expire.

As far as convincing others about the abortion argument, if the other side rejects that an embryo regardless of the stage is human…you’re done. When an embryo becomes human is a philosophical/theological rather than a biologic question.

 

[allhers]

Abortion has been legal for the entirety of my life. Prayer just isn’t doing a whole lot on the legal level. St. Paul didn’t spend all his time praying that pagans would be converted, he spent a lot of it coming up with new ways to convert pagans too.

You probably just went with whatever faith your parents taught you. Same as me. Same as like 90% of the people in the world.

Abortion wasn’t legal for my entire life, it was deceided by the Supreme Court, no vote was asked from us and I had just turned legal voting age too, I sure would not have voted to make it legal and I knew many other good and faithful Catholics that wouldn’t have wanted it legal either. We weren’t asked. But I did hear the same garbage then that I am hearing from you now, it isn’t a political issue, never was. I like the way Fr. Corapi says it, “Satan donned the robes of the Supreme Court Justices.” That sounds about right.

Not only did I go with the Truth, I also studied and found it to be the TRUTH, Jesus never changes. I have never been one to simply go along with the crowd either.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

I agree it isn’t working. However, in politics you have to win control in order to be able to make any significant changes. And control in the case of aboriton means having control long enough for the pro-abortion supreme court judges to retire or expire.

This already happened! 1992 - Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Eight Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. And the Supreme Court essentially ruled that it shouldn’t overrule its past decisions just because the members of the court have changed. It is the Supreme Court’s duty to uphold the law, which includes past Supreme Court decisions. If we want to change the law, we do that through the legislature, not the Supreme Court. Isn’t that what we’re always railing against? Legislation from the bench?

As far as convincing others about the abortion argument, if the other side rejects that an embryo regardless of the stage is human…you’re done. When an embryo becomes human is a philosophical/theological rather than a biologic question.

I don’t think anyone rejects that early-stage embryos are human, just that they should be given full rights as a person. I don’t like the implications here. You seem to be saying that you want the government to change the laws based on a religious argument, and that your position can’t be supported using only secular reasoning.

Abortion wasn’t legal for my entire life, it was deceided by the Supreme Court, no vote was asked from us and I had just turned legal voting age too, I sure would not have voted to make it legal and I knew many other good and faithful Catholics that wouldn’t have wanted it legal either. We weren’t asked. But I did hear the same garbage then that I am hearing from you now, it isn’t a political issue, never was. I like the way Fr. Corapi says it, “Satan donned the robes of the Supreme Court Justices.” That sounds about right.

That sounds a little melodramatic. We live in a democracy, and in fact we’ve just about succeeded in converting the rest of the world to our system of government. One of the problems inherent in a democracy is that sometimes we have to accept that the majority of people will want different laws than we do, and often these laws are based on a fundamental difference in beliefs. Now, I’m not saying we should give up. On the contrary, I think we should aggressively work to end late-term abortions. These procedures are so gruesome and unnecessary that I believe it would be possible to get them prohibited unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to save the life of the mother. But this is contingent on deciding to pursue incremental change, rather than massive change that only a quarter of the population agrees with anyway.

Not only did I go with the Truth, I also studied and found it to be the TRUTH, Jesus never changes. I have never been one to simply go along with the crowd either.

I studied my faith a lot, and found that the majority of Catholic teaching is true, but a lot isn’t 100% true as well. For instance, the “incorruptible” saints’ bodies that are in a bunch of European churches don’t decompose, and this is thought to be miraculous. But it turns out, when bodies are buried in soil with a lot of lime in it, that lime will sometimes turn the fat in a person’s body into soap. Since soap is a preservative, this keeps the bodies from decomposing for a long time, although the skin will often oxidize and turn dark brown. AFAIK, the Church has stopped making people saints just because their bodies don’t decompose, but a lot of Catholics still make pilgrimages to these churches where the bodies are on display. What does this change? Probably not much.

 

[allhers]

That sounds a little melodramatic. We live in a democracy, and in fact we’ve just about succeeded in converting the rest of the world to our system of government. One of the problems inherent in a democracy is that sometimes we have to accept that the majority of people will want different laws than we do, and often these laws are based on a fundamental difference in beliefs. Now, I’m not saying we should give up. On the contrary, I think we should aggressively work to end late-term abortions. These procedures are so gruesome and unnecessary that I believe it would be possible to get them prohibited unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to save the life of the mother. But this is contingent on deciding to pursue incremental change, rather than massive change that only a quarter of the population agrees with anyway.

I studied my faith a lot, and found that the majority of Catholic teaching is true, but a lot isn’t 100% true as well. For instance, the “incorruptible” saints’ bodies that are in a bunch of European churches don’t decompose, and this is thought to be miraculous. But it turns out, when bodies are buried in soil with a lot of lime in it, that lime will sometimes turn the fat in a person’s body into soap. Since soap is a preservative, this keeps the bodies from decomposing for a long time, although the skin will often oxidize and turn dark brown. AFAIK, the Church has stopped making people saints just because their bodies don’t decompose, but a lot of Catholics still make pilgrimages to these churches where the bodies are on display. What does this change? Probably not much.

Care to site where any abortion was ABSOLUTELY necessary to save the life of the mother?

Also, care to site where the Church has EVER MADE, using your words – anyone a Saint based on what you just said?

 

[allhers]

Another thing, while you’re at it:

According to the source YOU sited clear back on post #6 (you said…look at this article, well, I clicked on that link that you gave and from YOUR source – they have a chart on there titled this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Reasons_for_abortions

When women have abortions (by gestational age)…

It shows that 59.3% of women have abortions when they are 8 weeks pregnant or less,

and then the next largest group, 18 % have them when they are 9-10 pregnant,

then the next TWO groups make up just a little over 15% (9.4% and 5.9%) and they have them at 11-15 weeks,

then, as they noted above this, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions

So…in essence, you are fighting to keep abortion legal, but you want to prevent that 5% that choose to have one at 20 weeks and that makes up just a little over 1% of women, how gallant of you. You’d be a real hero huh?

That would be a whole 5% of abortions.

We fight for the other, larger part, the 95% and your 5%.

It also shows reasons for abortions which I will post below (from that same site given above, that YOU sited.)

 

[allhers]

Reasons given for abortions from YOUR source.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Reasons_for_abortions

In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[13] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[14]

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other

According to a 1987 study that included specific data about late abortions (i.e. abortions “at 16 or more weeks’ gestation”),[15] women reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion:

71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

PRETTY SICK AND SAD ISN’T IT???

 

[Chris_LaRock]

“Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.”

In other words, “You shall not murder” may be modified not to include abortion.

Same old political ****, same old Obama. Only three years and 9 months to go, hopefully.

The Pope, and the protestant leaders, should openly rebuke him for this.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Care to site where any abortion was ABSOLUTELY necessary to save the life of the mother?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy
Granted, most ectopic pregnancies result in miscarriages, but in the ones that don’t, abortions are usually necessary to save the mother’s life.

Also, care to site where the Church has EVER MADE, using your words – anyone a Saint based on what you just said?

No. It’s off-topic and I have other things to do.

So…in essence, you are fighting to keep abortion legal, but you want to prevent that 5% that choose to have one at 20 weeks and that makes up just a little over 1% of women, how gallant of you. You’d be a real hero huh?

That would be a whole 5% of abortions.

We fight for the other, larger part, the 95% and your 5%.

It also shows reasons for abortions which I will post below (from that same site given above, that YOU sited.)

I’m arguing for what I think we can accomplish, NOT what I would do were I the dictator of the United States. Clearly, a majority of Americans support allowing abortion at least some of the time. Congress is the only branch of the Federal government that can reverse Roe v. Wade. Congress has to confirm Supreme Court justices as well, so we can’t rely solely on a sympathetic president.

Just being against something doesn’t mean anything if you won’t do anything to change it.

 

[allhers]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy
Granted, most ectopic pregnancies result in miscarriages, but in the ones that don’t, abortions are usually necessary to save the mother’s life.

No. It’s off-topic and I have other things to do.

I’m arguing for what I think we can accomplish, NOT what I would do were I the dictator of the United States. Clearly, a majority of Americans support allowing abortion at least some of the time. Congress is the only branch of the Federal government that can reverse Roe v. Wade. Congress has to confirm Supreme Court justices as well, so we can’t rely solely on a sympathetic president.

Just being against something doesn’t mean anything if you won’t do anything to change it.

An etopic pregancy, while may be termed medically, just as medically a miscarriage may be termed so is NOT an abortion. Plus, you probably already know that and have only inserted it here to try to confuse someone who didn’t already know that. Which, I do know in fact!

The Catholic Church allows that and in fact, I personally know women who have had to undergo such a procedure and they sure grieved over their child who did indeed die but was NOT aborted.

As for the Saints, since you now consider it off topic, be aware that YOU brought up in the first place! (couldn’t find any sources to support your lies could you?)

Blah, blah, blah…I give up on you, I feel like I’m talking to a wall, I’ll pray that you and all who are involved in the culture of death, get a life!!