Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[Suudy]

Even if abortion is permissible, wouldn’t people still have the right to life after they born? Again, I do not see any necessary correlation between the treatment of fetuses and embryos and those already born.

Absolutely they have a right to life after they are born. Nobody has suggested otherwise. But perhaps the wording loses some of the real nuance of meaning in such a short phrase like “right to life”. Perhaps, instead, we should say “right to not be killed”.

Why does the termination of life in the womb automatically mandate a lack of concern for the homeless and hungry?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who suggested otherwise?

To answer the question about what good would feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless would accomplish, I will post a simple answer. Their hunger and their needs for shelter would be satisfied, and they would have at least immediate protection from material privation, if they are feed and sheltered, regardless whether they are regarded as “morally insignificant” in their mother’s womb.

You seem to be missing the point. The point is not whether any good comes from feeding the homeless, even if they have no right to life. Of course there is good in that act, independent of their “right not to be killed.” The point is more subtle. The very act of eating is contingent upon being alive. The very act of being sheltered is contingent upon being alive. The very act of being comforted while in prison is contingent upon being alive. Thus the right for the hungry to be fed is contingent upon their right to be alive. The right for the homeless to be sheltered is contingent upon their right to be alive. The right for the imprisoned to be comforted is contingent upon their right to be alive.

Please don’t confuse what I’m saying. I have never advocated dropping support for the needy. I only insist on two things: 1) that the means by which we care for the needy are licit, and 2) that the right to life take precedence. We are not in a situation where we have to choose between caring for the needy and protecting the right to life. We have the resources to do both. Why don’t we?

 

[rlg94086]

That you and I believe that murder is an evil doesn’t mean that everyone else has to agree with us. If it were so obvious that murder is an evil, who could support it?

Truth is what we believe to be the truth. Can one determine what is truth without interjecting one’s own point of view of it? I accept what the Church teaches, so I need not go any further for myself. Another man’s truth may not necessarily be the Catholic Church’s take on truth, however. Faith has so much to do with what Truth is, that I don’t think one can otherwise objectively and unquestionably determine what constitutes Truth.

Nope. You’re logic doesn’t work. If it did, you could insert any other evil and it would make sense. Murder is objectively and unquestionably wrong. Abortion is objectively and unquestionably wrong. The only waynyour statement works is if you buy into the lie that everything is relative.

 

[Suudy]

That you and I believe that abortion is an evil doesn’t mean that everyone else has to agree with us. If it were so obvious that abortion is an evil, who could support it?

I chose the word evil (because that is what it is). But in a pluralistic society, perhaps I should choose another. How about immoral? What about unjust? What about criminally negligent? What about murder?

There are reason based arguments for all of these labels that do not include any religious presuppositions. And if it is based on reason, why then is it a matter of belief? Should not reason convict the mind?

Truth is what we believe to be the truth. Can one determine what is truth without interjecting one’s own point of view of it? I accept what the Church teaches, so I need not go any further for myself. Another man’s truth may not necessarily be the Catholic Church’s take on truth, however. Faith has so much to do with what Truth is, that I don’t think one can otherwise objectively and unquestionably determine what constitutes Truth.

I don’t think so. You have to deny the existence of objective truth to believe such a thing. But if objective truth doesn’t exist, then there can’t be any truth in a statement like “Truth is what we believe to be the truth.” It is self-contradictory.

Now, I certainly do think people do have different takes on what is the truth, as Scott pointed out. And that is exactly why we engage our reason and our senses. We use our senses to gather data (and everyone does have their own perspective), but we then use reason to filter out the biases, prejudices, and presuppositions. And what results, if the sense data is accurate and the reasoning sound, is a view of the world as it really is.

 

[rlg94086]

“We hold these truths to be self evident…”

 

[Brendan]

That you and I believe that abortion is an evil doesn’t mean that everyone else has to agree with us. If it were so obvious that abortion is an evil, who could support it?

People supported slavery, does that mean that those Quakers how fought against it were wrong to do so. After all, they were trying to make others agree with their personal view on the immorality of slavery.

Truth is what we believe to be the truth. Can one determine what is truth without interjecting one’s own point of view of it? I accept what the Church teaches, so I need not go any further for myself. Another man’s truth may not necessarily be the Catholic Church’s take on truth, however. Faith has so much to do with what Truth is, that I don’t think one can otherwise objectively and unquestionably determine what constitutes Truth.

You are confusing “Belief” with “Truth”. Truth is objective, there is only one. People can have differently beliefs, but that does not impact Truth.

People can BELIEVE that Elvis is alive and working as a bartender in Hoboken. But that doesn’t mean that it is true.

People believed Jews were sub human, that didn’t mean that Jews WERE sub Human.

So while some people belives that abortion in NOT evil and NOT an affront to God, that is not true either.

 

[iamrefreshed]

When someone tells me Jesus didn’t condone abortion I have to challenge that thought.

Oh my! I just caught my error!

When someone (especially a professed Catholic) states that since the Gospel’s didn’t record Jesus speaking out against abortion, makes abortion A-OK, I have to challenge that thought.

It leads to a very slippery slope.

Euthanasia, embryonic stem cell reasearch and gay marriage are not recorded in the Gospel’s either. By the same standards, all these evils are just hunky-dory for Catholics.

That make the popes wrong and our church worthless. How can any professed Catholic believe this?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I don’t think so. You have to deny the existence of objective truth to believe such a thing. But if objective truth doesn’t exist, then there can’t be any truth in a statement like “Truth is what we believe to be the truth.” It is self-contradictory.

The difficulty is in determining what that Objective Truth is.

Now, I certainly do think people do have different takes on what is the truth, as Scott pointed out. And that is exactly why we engage our reason and our senses. We use our senses to gather data (and everyone does have their own perspective), but we then use reason to filter out the biases, prejudices, and presuppositions. And what results, if the sense data is accurate and the reasoning sound, is a view of the world as it really is.

You are assuming that we can filter out all those biases and presuppositions. I don’t think that we can, and the best we can hope for is to have a consensus as to what appears to be Truth to us.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The difficulty is in determining what that Objective Truth is.

You are assuming that we can filter out all those biases and presuppositions. I don’t think that we can, and the best we can hope for is to have a consensus as to what appears to be Truth to us.

With regard to faith and morals, we don’t have to filter anything out. Jesus Christ IS Truth, and He established a Church and protects it from teaching anything but. This is a fundamental Catholic doctrine. For anything outside of faith, we must rely on our senses, faith and reason to figure it out. But on matters of life, the Church has the authority to speak definitely on the matter.

 

[Suudy]

The difficulty is in determining what that Objective Truth is.

Indeed. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

You are assuming that we can filter out all those biases and presuppositions. I don’t think that we can, and the best we can hope for is to have a consensus as to what appears to be Truth to us.

I do think we can. Reason is the critical component. A well formed reason will filter out bias, prejudice and presupposition. And the culture now has become so entrenched in the senses (at least with regard to ethics), nearly to the exclusion of reason, that it seems impossible.

We are so good at applying reason to the material world. We need to return to applying reason to ethics as well.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

With regard to faith and morals, we don’t have to filter anything out. Jesus Christ IS Truth, and He established a Church and protects it from teaching anything but. This is a fundamental Catholic doctrine. For anything outside of faith, we must rely on our senses, faith and reason to figure it out. But on matters of life, the Church has the authority to speak definitely on the matter.

Yes, we who accept the Church on faith believe that. However, if one is not a Catholic, your statements come across only as denominational beliefs.

 

[Suudy]

Yes, we who accept the Church on faith believe that. However, if one is not a Catholic, your statements come across only as denominational beliefs.

When I argue these issues (on here and in the real world), I use the Catechism as a resource when arguing with Catholics. When non-Catholics, I use secular arguments.

Personally, I’ve found the former to be the most difficult and the hardest to understand. It is surprising how many Catholics refuse to recognize the teaching authority of the Church. And that boggles me. I would have thought the appeal to Church authority would be enough to convince Catholics.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

When I argue these issues (on here and in the real world), I use the Catechism as a resource when arguing with Catholics. When non-Catholics, I use secular arguments.

Personally, I’ve found the former to be the most difficult and the hardest to understand. It is surprising how many Catholics refuse to recognize the teaching authority of the Church. And that boggles me. I would have thought the appeal to Church authority would be enough to convince Catholics.

Father Corapi himself said that he finds it easier to have a religious based dialogue with a heroin addicted criminal than with a person who has been exposed to “Catholic education for 20 years”, precisely because of the horrific state of catechisis in the country. So much heresy and misinformation have crept into the Church at all levels that Catholics tend to be the hardest to talk to about essential Catholic doctrine, because they “already know it all.”.

 

[CMatt25]

I think you are confusing means, as in ability to achieve an end, with means as in the route by which we achieve an end. There certainly has been the ability to achieve the good end we all seek (at least here in the United States). There is no doubt those means exist. The issue, however, is the how we are to actually achieve those ends, not whether they are possible.

No I wasn’t confusing anything. The ability has been there. The route we have taken till now in caring for the sick for instance hasn’t achieved a good end for many though. And I’m unsure the present route will take us far enough either unless the road paved a bit more. Peace.

 

[Suudy]

No I wasn’t confusing anything. The ability has been there. The route we have taken till now in caring for the sick for instance hasn’t achieved a good end for many though. And I’m unsure the present route will take us far enough either unless the road paved a bit more. Peace.

The argument is debatable. Are the poor better off now than 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? Has the care for the poor gotten better or worse since Christ was last here?

But you still seem to be missing the point. Even if the means thus far have not achived the desired results, it does not mean that we should choose an illicit route. Whatever other route must also be licit. And choosing Uncle Sam to be that route is not.

 

[CMatt25]

Why does "being on this subject for 40 years mean anything? If there is a grave injustice, does the passage of time mitigate the moral gravity of the situation? If the civil rights advocates had given up because “we’ve been on the subject for nearly 40 years” where would we be now with civil rights for minorities, e.g.? I come back to my and Suudy’s original questions which you still haven’t answered:

I would like to add another question: Why is it that you feel compelled to “weigh your personal beliefs against living in a democracy of plural beliefs on the issue” on the abortion issue, yet you have no problem emphatically stating your opposition to capital punishment, for example? Why do you elevate the other issues above the sanctity of life from conception to natural death as the Church teaches? I would like you to try to give straighforward answers to these questions. You may want to “Move on” but the fact is, the right to life is the foundation for all other rights that have an effect on the hunger/homeless/war issues which you seemingly would rather focus on. Again, as Mother Theresa said, “if a mother can kill her baby, then I can kill you and you can kill me”.

If you believe the unborn baby to be a human being, then I don’t understand why you would take the pro-choice position. I don’t really expect to change your mind right now on this thread, but it is my hope that these questions will cause you to rethink your positions. If you don’t really have a good answer to them, then it should cause you to re-examine your position. Again, I am eager and waiting to hear your direct answers to my questions or even just a couple of them if that is all you have time for right now. Ishii

Hi Ishii, because nearly 40 yrs is a long time to be so focused on one issue so extremely in our voting. That those issues Christ talked more about, issues of the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick, and war and peace issues, are not elevated to at the very least the same degree as this one, if not more.

You can come back to Suudi as much as you want. I have answered. You and Suudi talk apples when I am talking an orange. That is my answer. Whether you like it or understand it or not. I am sorry. I do not mean to come across as uncharitable if you perceive such a tone. But I tried in my last post to address these issues. I understand you feel a need to force your beliefs on this issue onto everyone else. I simply do not at this time.

You, Suudi, and perhaps there have been others on this thread or other threads who have brought up to me about what if we kill children to age 1? Or gas children at age 10 or 11? Much like the posters who imply I am a baby killer or that Fr Martin or I are machine gun carrying liberation theologists, to me this type of rhetoric is nothing but demagoguery to insight and inflame.

These issues are no comparison. Apples to oranges. And I am not going to bite at the apple. Why? Because whether human life occurs in the womb at conception is something human beings have different beliefs on in this plural democracy of ours. And I choose to accept that I reside in a society of plural beliefs on this matter and I do not believe I have the right to force my belief on this onto everyone else. Those whom you and Suudi want to use as comparisons have less gray area. The person held in the bondage of slavery before anti-slavery laws were enacted was we know a person. And sure some folks, Catholics included, want to justify the state killing someone who we know has been born human and they do so by saying they are not innocent life. But we still know that is taking the life of a person no matter how dreadful and disgusting the acts of that person may have been. And Mother Theresa may have had a point if we lived in a theocracy or all agreed on the definition of baby at the moment of conception. I don’t know of anyone who is advocating making gassing 10 and 11 yr old boys in America for instance or killing all children to age 1 the law of the land. I know of plenty of women who want their right to choose and to decide what they believe occurs in the womb at the moment of conception.

I elevate these issues because Christ taught us to. I do not take the abortion issue as lightly as you and Suudi might expect. Quite the contrary. I wrestle with these matters. But I reject the notion that abortion must be the main issue in which I am to consider.

I hope I now have spent enough time on this matter for you because after 2 long posts on the matter it is indeed all I have time for now. I understand though this is a difficult concept for you to grasp as I sometimes have difficulty understanding why you believe you have the right to force your beliefs on this matter onto everyone else. The right to life vs the right of a woman to choose and decide what she believes is not as black and white to me.

See we go around in circles. I truly hope though this helped further because I’m not going to continue repeating myself. Abortion shall never be eradicated fully. So we have a choice. We can continue to go around in circles for another nearly 40 yrs or we can accept the law of the land at this point and indeed move on. Move on to safe and legal but rare. Further reducing abortions by for instance getting more programs, including govt programs, in place to aide mothers after childbirth. And promoting other things to reduce a woman feeling she has no choice but to abort under her circumstances. But in the end in a democracy of plural beliefs on this matter, the choice may have to lie with her.

And by moving on, can we only then as a Church and as a society get the focus back to those other issues Christ so clearly espoused. The choice is ours to make.

God bless and peace!

CMatt

 

[Suudy]

Hi Ishii, because nearly 40 yrs is a long time to be so focused on one issue so extremely in our voting. That those issues Christ talked more about, issues of the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick, and war and peace issues, are not elevated to at the very least the same degree as this one, if not more.

How many years was slavery an issue before it was resolved? How many years was women’s suffrage an issue before it was resolved? Should we have just ignored them since they were taking too long? After all, they were settled law…

You can come back to Suudi as much as you want. I have answered. You and Suudi talk apples when I am talking an orange. That is my answer. Whether you like it or understand it or not. I am sorry. I do not mean to come across as uncharitable. But I tried in my last post. I understand you feel a need to force your beliefs on this issue onto everyone else. I simply do not at this time.

You still haven’t clarified what you mean by this. It’s not apples and oranges. We are talking about life, at all stages from conception until natural death.

You, Suudi, and perhaps there have been others on this thread or other threads who have brought up to me about what if we kill children to age 1? Or gas children at age 10 or 11? Much like the posters who imply I am a baby killer or that Fr Martin or I are machine gun carrying liberation theologists, to me this type of rhetoric is nothing but demagoguery to insight and inflame.

Because in order for you to be logically consistent in your support for the legal status of abortion, you must admit that infanticide and euthanasia should also be legal.

I’ll post you the link again, but I strongly recommend you listen to Peter Kreeft’s talk on pro-life philosophy.

peterkreeft.com/audio/19_prolife-philosophy.htm

It’s short, he doesn’t talk in high lofty terms, and is many times funny.

The reason we bring up things like infanticide and euthanasia, is because they cannot be argued against if you concede the same arguments used for abortion. Peter Kreeft talks recollects a conversation he had when discussing abortion. From the transcript:I was arguing with a very intelligent pro-choice feminist and I argued, “Give me one argument that defends abortion that doesn’t also defend infanticide.” And we argued for a while, and I felt it was going nowhere, but afterwards she came up to me and said, “You know, I didn’t think you could do this, but you convinced me, you made me change my mind.” I said, " Oh really? Congratulations, you’ve seen the logic." She said, “Yeah, now I’m for infanticide.”
An intellectually honest person must concede the argument for infanticide if they accept the arguments for abortion. That’s why it isn’t apples and oranges. We aren’t comparing abortion to infanticide. We are comparing the arguments (which are of the same species) of abortion and infanticide.

These issues are no comparison. Apples to oranges. And I am not going to bite at the apple. Why? Because whether human life occurs in the womb at conception is something human beings have different beliefs on in this plural democracy of ours. And I choose to accept that I reside in a society of plural beliefs on this matter and I do not believe I have the right to force my belief on this onto everyone else.

No, it isn’t a matter of belief. This is what we have been trying to drive home. Truth is truth regardless of what people believe in a pluralistic society. It is either a human life at conception or it isn’t. Think it so (or thinking it not so) doesn’t change the underlying fact.

Those whom you and Suudi want to use as comparisons have less gray area. The person held in the bondage of slavery before anti-slavery laws were enacted was we know a person.

How did we know they were a person? The law didn’t say so. In fact, in the US anyways, it said they were only 3/5 of a person. Were they fully a human person before slavery was abolished? So, if the law currently says that unborn children are not human persons, all it takes is a change in the law? The law gives life?

And sure some folks, Catholics included, want to justify the state killing someone who we know has been born human and they do so by saying they are not innocent life. But we still know that is taking the life of a person no matter how dreadful and disgusting the acts of that person may have been.

Which is exactly why many Catholics are staunchly opposed to capital punishment. I am. I know many here are as well. But there certainly is a difference between taking an innocent human life and one that isn’t. Which is the greater evil?

And Mother Theresa may have had a point if we lived in a theocracy or all agreed on the definition of baby at the moment of conception. I don’t know of anyone who is advocating making gassing 10 and 11 yr old boys in America for instance or killing all children to age 1 the law of the land. I know of plenty of women who want their right to choose and to decide what they believe occurs in the womb at the moment of conception.

I don’t think there are people advocating gassing 10 or 11 year old boys these days. But if you accept the arguments for abortion, to be logically consistent you must acknowledge the Nazi death camps as no less amoral. Why is is permissible to destroy a human life in the womb, but it is not permissible to do so when six weeks old? 1 year old? 11 years old? 95 years old?

 

[Suudy]

I elevate these issues because Christ taught us to. I do not take the abortion issue as lightly as you and Suudi might expect. Quite the contrary. I wrestle with these matters. But I reject the notion that abortion must be the main issue in which I am to consider.

And that is why we have been trying to make it clear that these other issues are contingent upon the right to life. The extend from the right to life. These other issues are secondary because they are contingent.

But to be clear, I want to make a distinction. We are not fighting against abortion to the detriment of care for the needy. Nobody is suggesting we drop all efforts to help those in need. Like most Catholic things, it is a both/and. How does fighting for the lives of the unborn interfere with care for the needy?

I hope I now have spent enough time on this matter for you because after 2 long posts on the matter it is indeed all I have time for now. I understand though this is a difficult concept for you to grasp as I sometimes have difficulty understanding why you believe you have the right to force your beliefs on this matter onto everyone else.

Again, you keep saying “belief”. It isn’t just some arbitrary belief. it isn’t an opinion, like my favorite flavor of ice cream. This is important stuff. If I had a belief that every person that ever used a handle of CMatt25 should be locked in prison for the rest of their lives, and somehow convinced enough people to support it and passed a law, would you object? Why? After all, my belief is my belief, and who are you to impose your beliefs on me?

The point is that some things are grounded in objective reality. The reality is that abortion is the destruction of innocent human life. Reason, not belief or faith, tells us this. And if imposing truth on you is so problematic, I guess we better stop trying to tell you that “2+2=4”. How rude of us to impose our mathematical beliefs on you!

The right to life vs the right of a woman to choose and decide what she believes is not as black and white to me.

Of course, we completely disagree. The only gray area might be when the mother’s life is in grave, immediate danger. All other cases, nobody has a right to choose anything that would result in the death of another innocent human being. None.

See we go around in circles. I truly hope though this helped further because I’m not going to continue repeating myself. Abortion shall never be eradicated fully.

You are so certain of this? Never? Hmm…I wonder if they said the same thing about slavery? I wonder if the Romans though the same thing about their empire?

And even if you might be right (with a fully qualified “never” such as “never in my lifetime”), why should be cease trying? There never has been an immortal man, so should we quit trying to live?

So we have a choice. We can continue to go around in circles for another nearly 40 yrs or we can accept the law of the land at this point and indeed move on. Move on to safe and legal but rare.

We keep coming back to this, because you never address the point. Let’s use your words with slight changes: Slavery: We can continue to go around in circles for another nearly 40 yrs or we can accept the law of the land at this point and indeed move on. Move on to safe and legal but rare.

**Women’s Suffrage: **We can continue to go around in circles for another nearly 40 yrs or we can accept the law of the land at this point and indeed move on. Move on to safe and legal but rare.
So, you would be fine if slavery were safe, legal, and rare?

Further reducing abortions by for instance getting more programs, including govt programs, in place to aide mothers after childbirth. And promoting other things to reduce a woman feeling she has no choice but to abort under her circumstances.

Why can’t we do both? Why can’t we fight against abortion and provide resources for scared, pregnant women?

But in the end in a democracy of plural beliefs on this matter, the choice may have to lie with her.

Again, it is not about beliefs. It is about what is the objectively right thing to do.

And by moving on, can we only then as a Church and as a society get the focus back to those other issues Christ so clearly espoused. The choice is ours to make.

You are acting like it is an either/or situation. Nobody here, and nobody in the Church, is suggesting that we cease all efforts to aid those in need until abortion is outlawed. We can focus on all the issues. And we do! Does not the Church have significant outreach to all those in need? The Church is the single largest organization for the care and assistance of those in need, whether they be material or spiritual needs.

 

[CMatt25]

We ought not mistake paying taxes with either charity or helping the poor. The main benefactor of a bigger tax burden is a bigger government.
Insurance companies benefited greatly from the health care program for example which forced people to pay into it. Bankers were the main benefactors of the trillions of the stimulus, car companies of the cash for clunkers. Then there is of course the teachers unions, the trial lawyers, the government workers, and all the usual people that fund liberal political machines and get their rewards.

In the meantime, homelessness in New York has increased 50 % in the last year.
But there day will come, as promised, just like Guatanamo…

And this is the ‘social justice’, that was an adequate payback for the Catholic voter to keep the abortion mills humming along in well-funded, tip-top shape?

No argument here on the insurance cos benefiting. If we’re going to force ppl to buy insurance no better reason why we should have offered a public option. Banks too. Although some folks were probably able to upgrade their transportation from their clunkers and reportedly some teachers and public safety workers have had their jobs saved.

But what we may need in govt are are less centrist Dems and certainly less conservative R’s. Peace.

 

[bbarrick8383]

But what we may need in govt are are less centrist Dems and certainly less conservative R’s. Peace.

Yes, and we need a one world government as well while we are at it. Let’s just forget borders, become a one world everything. Free rides to any landmass you wish, completely subsidized by the one world government, of course. Free healthcare, regardless of lifestyle, unemployment rate will not matter, why get a job when you can get free money sitting at home.

…that kind of talk is repugnant.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Hi Ishii, because nearly 40 yrs is a long time to be so focused on one issue so extremely in our voting. That those issues Christ talked more about, issues of the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick, and war and peace issues, are not elevated to at the very least the same degree as this one, if not more.

Except, of course, if you are Catholic, as you purport to be, you really don’t have a moral choice regarding abortion. You are obliged, as a Catholic, to oppose it, period. The Church teaches that issues relating to the proper way to take care of the poor, the homeless, the hungry, and issues of war and peace, are all issues in which you may exercise “prudential judgment”. But not abortion.

As a citizen of the U.S., of course, you have a LEGAL right to think whatever you want to think about abortion. Unfortunately, you have a legal right to support abortion and those who support it, just as every citizen does.

But as a moral issue, and as a Catholic, when it comes to abortion, there is no option for you. You are morally obligated to oppose it and those who support it. Sorry.