C
CMatt25
Guest
No they’re not. Perhaps in your reasoning you believe they are though. Peace Suudy.
- Status
Suudy
Active member
Yes, they are. Read it again:
We are comparing the ARGUMENTS for abortion with the ARGUMENTS for infanticide and the ARGUMENTS for euthanasia. They are all the same species. We are not comparing abortion with infanticide. We are not comparing abortion with euthanasia. We are comparing ARGUMENTS.
We are comparing ARGUMENTS. Arguments are the same species. We are comparing arguments. ARGUMENTS.
I can’t figure out how to make it any more clear.
C
CMatt25
Guest
So?
I have too. I believe there is one truth. But as Rich clearly explained, what we believe is truth is based a lot on faith. SDAs believe they have the truth as well as you believing you do Suudy. Others do as well. It’s faith and belief and I’ll even toss in some reason if it makes you feel better. Which varies with the person though of course. Peace.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Suudy, I don’t know if you do but I don’t need to read the same things over and over again. You reason that you have the right to force your belief on the moment of conception onto everyone else. And I reason differently on that one issue. God bless you. Good night and peace.
Suudy
Active member
And I said it shouldn’t be. it should be based on reason.So?
So who is right? SDA’s or the Catholic church? Who has reasons for what they believe?
That is exactly why I converted to Catholicism. I started with faith in God. But when finally serious about my faith, I searched for reasons for my faith. I went from Assembly of God, to Epsicopal, to Lutheran, and finally to the Church (along with a few shorts stops by the Society of Friends, Baptists, and Presbyterians). Only the Catholic Church could convict my reason.
We only rely upon faith for those things that cannot be proven by reason. For example, the mysteries such as the real presence, Christ’s divinity, etc. But for other things, like whether an unborn child is human, we use reason, not faith.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Everyone has reasons, Suudy. Good for you! I’m glad you found somewhere that fit your reasoning. God bless!
Suudy
Active member
This is frustrating. You keep injecting the word “belief” when there is no “belief” involved. Only reasons.
True or false? An fetus is a human person.
True or false? 2 + 2 = 4
Simple questions. Simple answers. Either a fetus is a person, or it isn’t. Either 2 + 2 = 4, or it doesn’t.
No beliefs involved. Just reason.
But you haven’t given me one reason yet! You keep saying you “believe” differently, or that we all have different “beliefs”, or even the platitude above.
Give me one reason why an unborn child is not a human person. Not a platitude like “because I believe it isn’t” or “not everyone agrees” or “we will have to agree to disagree.” A reason.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
It all comes down to playing a game of mental twister so they can vote in pro-abortion canidates.
Sad really.
Babies die for vote justification by self-professed catholics.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
What I would like to see is one program, just one, promoted by these self-professed “Catholic” politicians that has actually had the benefit that it claims to have. Every “social justice” program that has been enacted hasn’t solved the problem that it was justified in creating, and more often than not, ends up enriching politicians and lobbyists at the EXPENSE of the people it claims to benefit.It all comes down to playing a game of mental twister so they can vote in pro-abortion canidates.
Sad really.
Babies die for vote justification by self-professed catholics.
C
Catherine_D
Guest
And they would tell you that the only reason it hasn’t worked as well as expected is that it is underfunded.
C
CMatt25
Guest
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The real irony is that they excommunicate themselves for nothing at all. Many seem to believe that the liberal Democrats somehow benefit the poor, when they don’t. Perhaps the worst off group in our society are the disabled needy; those on SSI, who are somehow expected to live on about $600/month. They have to reduce themselves to the following assets: One house, one car, household goods (if they managed to get them before disability, which most don’t) and $999.99 in all other assets to get that $600. If, by some miracle, they manage to go over that $999.99, their benefits are reduced until they go below it.It all comes down to playing a game of mental twister so they can vote in pro-abortion canidates.
Sad really.
Babies die for vote justification by self-professed catholics.
And a trillion dollars of middle class vote-buying later, this government has done absolutely nothing for those people; the poorest and most helpless of all. This claim that the left helps the poor is all a sham. It helps itself, and for Catholics to aid it in that endeavor, (which they’re free to do, if they believe in that sort of thing) they have to defy the clear Church teaching and sell their souls (which they should never do). A very poor bargain.
There was a time when Democrats (like me) could support a party that really did help poor people. And it didn’t demand defiance of the Church’s teachings, either. I am not ashamed that I supported the Democrat Party back before it became totally dedicated to abortion and before it abandoned the poor. But I would be ashamed to support it now, and don’t.
J
Julianna
Guest
As a Catholic I would be very cautious in aligning with the Christian Right. Beck was preaching to Evangelicals. Keep in mind the Christian Right has been alive and well, and heavily into politics since Ronald Reagan was President. Pay attention. Remember Ralph Reed, hired by Pat Robertson as first executive director of the Christian Coalition? That is until he got caught with his hand in the gambling casino cookie jar with Abramoff.
Do conservative Catholics have a seat at the Tea Party table? Sure, you can sit, you can talk, but your words will ring hollow. As a moderate/independent, I am highly suspicious of the closing gap of religion and government.
Becks mall speech was for and about awakening the evangelical movement. Not rocket science.
It is the the Papacy keeping Catholics at arms length of this movement. There is no amount of history or education to convince the religious right that Catholics are “Christians” and they are passionate about our government.
This is what I mean about “fishbowl” living. Many conservative Catholics are willing to alienate those that live in the real world, including fellow Catholics who may not take such a hard turn to the right. What is missing is what is “going on” outside the “fishbowl” in the big ocean.
Evangelicals do want to turn back the clock to the 50’s or earlier, just as many conservative Catholics do. The road divides at the Papacy. The Pope is the leader of our Church, our faith, period. Having grown up in the real world, and known, evangelicals, holiness, Baptists, I know what is going on. Living in the south, the TBN network, fills the airwaves day and night. Ralph Reed’s “soft” approach is what gave the Christian Coalition their drive. Now it is, and has been roaring into government ever since.
I posted this on another thread which was closed due to placement. However, I believe it belongs here.
Of all the things that conservative Catholic nit-pik at with each other…they are surely missing the big picture of the re-birth of the Christian Coalition. Worrying about the so called homosexual agenda, or the progressive’s agenda, or the ills of Vatican II…is nothing compared to being blind-sided by the Christian Right…and jumping on their bandwagon in the name of God and country.
The theme is bringing this country back to values and to God. Which begs the question: Who’s values??? and Who’s interpretation of God’s will?
C
CMatt25
Guest
Sorry you’re so frustrated Suudy. But ok if it will make you feel better even though I reason the word you don’t like to use has a great role to play in our reasoning, I will for your sake not use the word in this response.
Are you asking whether I personally reason a fetus is a human being or whether someone else who reasons differently than you, reasons it to be a human being? Assuming you are asking what I personally reason since the question was addressed to me, I would have to again say I tend at the moment to reason it is.
But what you or I reason is totally irrelevant to this discussion because I also reason I don’t have the right to force my reasoning on this issue onto a woman who might reason differently, Suudy, than you or I. I also reason this issue is different than all the other ones you like to mix in because I reason a much grayer area on this issue than whether for instance 2+2 = 4. Or whether we should legalize killing infants up to a yr old. Or gassing 11 yr olds. I reason mathematics and whether or not we should legalize infantcide up to a yr old or whether we should gas 11 yr olds are greater exact sciences than determining whether human life occurs at the moment of conception. And remember I am speaking of Roe. Not whether we should legalize abortion upto one second before birth before you go there.Now I could only speculate Suudy as to one reason someone, who reasons differently than you or I, has as to why an unborn child is not a human being. Perhaps because they reason an embryo or 2 mo old fetus is not yet a child or a baby? Or because they reason their definition of an unborn baby is one with a soul and they reason ensoulment has not yet taken place? There might even be other reasons they have.
In any case Suudy, see I reason you or I do not have sole ownership to reasoning on whether human life begins at the moment of conception. Look at it another way. You said you eventually reasoned the Catholic Church was the church for you. There are plenty of others however who have used the same means to reason with as you did but who arrive at a different conclusion in the end than you did.
And you are not forcing everyone to become Catholics I shall assume.I know this is all very frustrating for you Suudy but it’s just how I reason.
And we’re already on the same page that neither your reasoning nor mine necessarily equates to 100% absolute certainty. 
So Suudy, I am tired of you repeating the same things over and over and over again and then I respond each time. So this is my final post to you on this issue. But indeed I pray you find peace. God bless you.
K
kozlosap
Guest
WOW! You took the words out of my mouth and then added some more!!
Great Post!
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
The unanimous consensus from the embryology community is that life begins at conception. So, the Church and the scientific community agree on this fact. FACT, not opinion, fact. Life, all life, begins at conception. Can we move on please?
Suudy
Active member
I admitted that nobody has 100% absolute certainty. But even in that case, the lack of certainty should stop us from abortion. The very fact that we do not know should be enough to convict anyone from stopping.I know this is all very frustrating for you Suudy but it’s just how I reason.
I’ll quote directly from Kreeft, who I think does an outstanding job on this point. If we do not know if a fetus is a person, there are two possible outcomes of an abortion. I’ll highlight the relevant portion, which is almost exactly the position you are taking.
- Manslaughter. The second possibility. The fetus is, in fact, a person, and you don’t know that. You think it’s not a person. You sincerely believe that, “Well, maybe it’s not a person, I don’t know it. I don’t know whether it is or not,” and you kill it. What’s that? Legally, that is manslaughter. Not deliberate murder. It’s like running over an overcoat on a dark night in the middle of a highway, that has the shape of a human being, and it might be an old drunk who’s just lying there, stoned in the road. And it might just be an overcoat. And you don’t swerve, you deliberately run over it. Or, it’s like shooting a movement in the bush that might be a deer, and it might be your fellow hunter. Or, it’s like fumigating a dormitory without being sure that all the students are out, and the fumigation kills them. You might be lucky. You might find that there is no man under the coat, and there is no hunter behind the bush, and there is no student in the dormitory, but you didn’t know that and nevertheless you shot, you fumigated.
- Criminal Negligence. That’s criminal negligence if there’s nobody there, it’s manslaughter if there is somebody there. All three cases—murder, criminal negligence, and manslaughter—are bad.
But you don’t respond with substance. You respond each time with generalities and platitudes. You don’t give reasons. I’m trying to get you to give me a reason why abortion should not be opposed by everyone.
I beg you to just listen to Peter Kreeft’s talks here: peterkreeft.com/audio/19_prolife-philosophy.htm
They are free. You don’t have to register. He is very easy to listen to. Please, just listen.
C
CMatt25
Guest
No one said a thing about an embryo not being some form of life. Yes lets.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Some form of life? So a human embryo may be really a cabbage?
J
Julianna
Guest
I think perhaps Chris is questioning…as I have…“who’s values?”…“who’s interpretation of what God’s will is?”
I find it odd that the conservative Catholics who dislike ecumenism will all of a sudden align themselves with Beck and the Christian Right? Would the folks on the mall be confortable with a word or two piped in from the Pope? Would they enjoy a few gregorian chants or a rosary gathering?
What do I know…
…I am a Catholic who lives in the big ocean…and can see the big picture. I don’t have to wrap myself in the flag to be considered a patriot. I haven’t spent hours upon hours in my fishbowl, to the exclusion of all other thought processes, pouring over canon law and telling others how they should live their lives, telling others that ecumenism is not the way to go. Yet, Glenn Beck calls and conservative Catholics are pushing and shoving to get on the Christian Coalition bandwagon.Church and state are separate for a reason.
- Status