Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[SoCalRC]

What you have convienently left out of your cathecist quote- From the CCC 2309 concerning use of military action for self defense.

No, you are just suffering from the normal problem with ‘short answers’. You have to read more than one entry. Following CCC 2309 we get additional limits on war:

"The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. “The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.” - CCC 2312

And

"Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions…" - CCC 2313

Your ‘logic’ is what we had. The Vice President told us that there was ‘no doubt’ about a nuclear program. Condi Rice told us the smoking gun would be a “mushroom cloud”. But, according to the Pentagons latest indepth investigation (March '08), there was no nuclear program. In fact, the only ‘evidence’ we had was information gained under torture. Information that was later debunked.

That’s the problem with confusing “24” with reality (in case you were wondering, it’s fiction made up for entertainment purposes).

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, yes, the penalities changed. Abortions did not previously carry automatic excommunication. And early abortions carried a lighter penality. The Church did not change the teaching. That is we still believe that at one point the fetus is not ensouled, but the two tiers of punishment was dropped and the overall punishment was increased.

Understood. I did not know that. Thanks.

SoCalRC:

Craniotomies, it was a form of late term abortion typically used when the mother was in extreme medical distress. It was specifically banned by Pope Leo XIII in 1884. Leo went further in 1886 banning all procedures, including those intended to save the mother’s life. It was at that point that excommunication became automatic and extended to all abortions.

Thanks…now your previous post makes sense.

SoCalRC:

Any physical deformity. This is still practice, as ritualistic infanticide, in pockets of Christianity even today.

Yes, there are some who are in favor of abortion for any deformity. I’m not sure which “pockets of Christianity” are in favor of it, but certainly our secular society is all for it.

SoCalRC:

Procedures like craniotomies, really are partial birth abortions. And we can find them all the way back to Tertullian (who, interestingly, described the procedure as inarguably moral and just). The so-called ‘partial birth abortion ban’ deals with a procedure most often used in response to medical problems in the 2nd trimester. The problem I have with the ban is that no one, not the people who wrote it, not the lawmakers who passed it, or the judges who upheld it, believes that it will stop a single abortion.

However, the same folks gladly have mislead the public on the effect of the ban. Even the name is designed for pure emotion. So, it seems like pure politics and power play to me. If you want to go after abortions, look at the 1 million first trimester abortions, or the hundred thousand plus ectopic terminations. Going after the 2,000 most heartbreaking cases, like two twins dying, one aborted intact to save the other) with a ban that will do nothing other than force both twins to be aborted and the mother to run additional risk of uterine bleeding?

All abortions are wrong, but when you are trying to win hearts and minds, this does not seem how one would go about it. On the other hand, if you are interested in lots of fanfare for no real effect…

You know, I appreciate it when you educate me on some Church history and give your point of views. I even understand your admonishions about being a faithful Catholic and keeping allegiance to our Church ahead of political parties.

But, then you go off on your same diatribe against the Republican party and conservatives. When will you understand that a lot of thoughtful Catholics who do put their faith first also support the only party that ever does anything to stop abortion? The fact that the partial birth abortion ban is not as powerful as it could be does not lie on Republicans alone. The teeth were removed by Democrats who forced compromises that had to be made to pass the legislation. Further, most Republicans (not all, sadly) would be all for a complete ban on abortion. That is one of the reasons I support them.

If you really, truly want to create a political party that is more closely aligned to the teaching of the Catholic Church, go do it. Quit whining and telling the rest of us that we aren’t following our faith properly because our political party isn’t perfect in your eyes. If you actually give me a real, viable alternative, I will gladly join you.

 

[jean8]

And thank you for your response.

One who feels abortion should be “a choice” and should not be illegal, who says “we can’t force our beliefs on others” believes, willy-nilly, that the unborn child is not human. It’s that simple.

Unborn child not human?? It’s breathing. What would you say is growing in the womb of the mother?
God knew when this human person was being formed.
Ps.139:15-17 “My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the dephs of the earth, your eyes saw my umformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
The word of God.
Choice? The choice to kill or not to kill? What God has made?

God bless,
jean8

 

[ribozyme]

If you really, truly want to create a political party that is more closely aligned to the teaching of the Catholic Church, go do it. Quit whining and telling the rest of us that we aren’t following our faith properly because our political party isn’t perfect in your eyes. If you actually give me a real, viable alternative, I will gladly join you.

Trust me, he doesn’t have the resources to do that. Not even George Soros could defeat Bush. How do you expect him to form a successful political party? And if you do, we need better energy policy.

 

[rlg94086]

Trust me, he doesn’t have the resources to do that. Not even George Soros could defeat Bush. How do you expect him to form a successful political party? And if you do, we need better energy policy.

Okay…SoCalRC, take note. Your party needs to have a better energy policy!

 

[BamaRider]

SoCal made this remark about having to waterboard a terrorist with specific info about a imminent attack.

That’s the problem with confusing “24” with reality (in case you were wondering, it’s fiction made up for entertainment purposes).

You’re telling us, there is no possiblity, that the same people who planned and executed the 9-11 attacks, can’t/won’t plant a nuke in St Lous if they could? And in case YOUR WONDERING its called feasiblility, and its not for entertainment purposes, its for killing as many Americans as possible.

And all I’m tellin ya if that “fiction” becomes reality, and some kook has specific knowledge of a nuke about to go off in the city where my 10 year niece lives, I don’t care what they gotta do to prevent it. if it means putting some wackos head in vise to save a few million folks, so be it.

Now, what you believe is the right thing to do in that situation is up to you, I just know where I stand.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Understood. I did not know that. Thanks.

Thanks…now your previous post makes sense.

Yes, there are some who are in favor of abortion for any deformity. I’m not sure which “pockets of Christianity” are in favor of it, but certainly our secular society is all for it.

You know, I appreciate it when you educate me on some Church history and give your point of views. I even understand your admonishions about being a faithful Catholic and keeping allegiance to our Church ahead of political parties.

But, then you go off on your same diatribe against the Republican party and conservatives. When will you understand that a lot of thoughtful Catholics who do put their faith first also support the only party that ever does anything to stop abortion? The fact that the partial birth abortion ban is not as powerful as it could be does not lie on Republicans alone. The teeth were removed by Democrats who forced compromises that had to be made to pass the legislation. Further, most Republicans (not all, sadly) would be all for a complete ban on abortion. That is one of the reasons I support them.

If you really, truly want to create a political party that is more closely aligned to the teaching of the Catholic Church, go do it. Quit whining and telling the rest of us that we aren’t following our faith properly because our political party isn’t perfect in your eyes. If you actually give me a real, viable alternative, I will gladly join you.

The Didache prohibited abortion and it was published in the first century … the first written Catholic canon law.

Abortion was ALWAYS prohibited under the strictest of penalties including denial of holy communion even on one’s deathbed. Always.

Here is an interesting article … read it:

newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

 

[SoCalRC]

But, then you go off on your same diatribe against the Republican party and conservatives.

Several Catholic pro-life groups publicly took the same stand against the ban. Focus on the Family, which was a driving force behind the ban, had a public representative concede, in an interview, that “many” in their group felt that the ban would not stop a single abortion.

And, of course, the Supreme Court ruling argues that the ban will not stop a single abortion. We can disagree, but why is that point of view a “diatribe”?

If you really, truly want to create a political party that is more closely aligned to the teaching of the Catholic Church, go do it.

You are, again, missing the point. Notice you laid the criteria of “viable”. Why does a party have to be viable? Do you have more trust in earthly political powers than the power of God?

 

[liotino]

QUOTED FROM ABOVE…there is no way a temporary host…mom can kill that developing baby and still be 'Catholic" …

I THANK GOD THAT HE HAS DIVINE MERCY AND THAT ANYONE WHO REPENTS AND CONFESSES HIS/HER SIN TO GOD THROUGH THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION IS FORGIVEN WHEN THIS SIN IS TRULY CONFESSED WITH SORROW AND THE DESIRE TO CHANGE ONE’S LIFE. WHEN A MOM THAT ABORTS HER BABY DOES THIS REPENTANCE, SURELY WE CAN ONLY SAY, "PRAISE GOD, THAT SHE HAS SEEN HER SIN AND HAS ASKED GOD TO FORGIVE’…NOW IT IS UP TO US TO DO THE SAME. WE MUST BE CAREFUL OURSELVES NOT TO JUDGE BECAUSE WE, THEN, ARE TOLD THAT WE WILL BE JUDGED ACCORDING TO THE WAY WE JUDGE OTHERS. IT ISN’T EASY TO BE LOVING BUT WE MUST ALWAYS TRY…ESPECIALLY TO THOSE WHO SIN AND ASK FORGIVENESS. WITH THIS FORGIVENESS GIVEN, SURELY THEY ARE STILL “CATHOLICS”?

You are so right in what you are saying about God’s Mercy in the repented heart of the the mother who aborted her child. Unless I am not seeing things clearly in all that is being batted around about this very complicated issue at least for many do I see that forgiveness of God is abated. However, with this being said it is in error to believe that sin is excused from judgement; if that were true this whole discussion/debate would be mute. What we cannot judge is the motive of the heart that commits the sin for only God knows the reason/provocation of the action of the sin.
The reconciliation through confession puts the Catholic in good standing with the faith. This answer comes from a belief not from studying Cannon Law or some theological study.
I find it very interesting as the discussion and debate goes on the semantics of this very issue shows why abortion still exists the thirty year debate has afforded no unity for fighting this. For as long as we stay fracture in the Christian community there will never be a changing of this law. I also add this, which in all reality will open another can of worms it is this ABORTION WILL NEVER BE SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY OF BEING UNLAWFUL because if the belief Life is from conception to natural death we have to look at war, death penalty, medical judgements, and whatever I may have miss. The Life from conception to natural death has to be all or nothing the fracturing will solve nothing.
The Militant army of God, the church has to be strong and united on all fronts. We are only as strong as our weakest link.
Come on don’t let an old lady have to say this

 

[Ender]

It is folks like Vern, Ender, and yourself who have publicly rejected portions of the Church’s expansive understanding of the “right to life”.

That is one possible explanation. A more likely one, however, is that we disagree not with the Church but with your understanding of what she teaches. As I have never stated that I reject anything the Church teaches your statement is flatly untrue.

You may argue that I misunderstand her instructions but you may not charge that I reject them.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

Read CCC 2270 closely, word by word. Where does it say that we must accept simultaneous animation?

2270, in it’s entirety:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

The Church says the opposite, just as I stated, simultaneous animation is not relevent, or even widely accepted:

“Smultaneous animation” is your red herring.

The Church says: Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

Do you deny that?

 

[SoCalRC]

You’re telling us, there is no possiblity, that the same people who planned and executed the 9-11 attacks, can’t/won’t plant a nuke in St Lous if they could? And in case YOUR WONDERING its called feasiblility, and its not for entertainment purposes, its for killing as many Americans as possible.

And all I’m tellin ya if that “fiction” becomes reality…

Now, what you believe is the right thing to do in that situation is up to you, I just know where I stand.

What I am “telling” you can be broken down several ways. First, I’m telling you what the Church teaches. Rather or not you accept the Church’s teachings on the inalienable rights of the human person when it might cost you dearly is up to you. IE, rather or not your Christian values are something worth dying for is your choice, despite secular law and Church law to the contrary.

Second, I’m pointing out that the scenario that you are playing our in your mind is the end game of epic and comprehensive incompetence in terms of actually protecting the public. If you really care about your niece, vote for politicians who fund real port security and programs to control the international flow of nuclear materials, not politicians who defund such programs and try to put ports under the control of Dubai. By the time life and death hinges on torturing the truth out of someone, the odds are stacked far against you. If the person is innocent, they’ll send you on a wild goose chase to make the torture stop (like ‘mobile biological labs’ in Iraq). If they are guilty, the abuse can steel their resolve (like the Iraqi General who turned himself in, but then stopped talking when the beatings began - he was beaten to death in a sleeping bag). Dying for something you believe in might be a foreign concept to you, but in a world with suicide bombers it is clearly an outlook some people have.

Last, I’m baffled by your insistance on fanciful creations. You support very real and measurable torture:

47 year old white male detainee died while in US custody. Cause of death: Blunt Force Injuries and Asphyxia; Manner of Death: Homicide. Autopsy revealed deep bruising of the chest wall, numerous displaced rib fractures, bruising on the lungs, hemorrhage into the mesentery of the small and large intestine. Examination of the neck structures revealed hemorrhage into the strap muscles and fractures of the thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone. History of asphyxia, secondary to occlusion of the oral airway. Pleural and pulmonary adhesions. Hypertensive cardiovascular disease. According to report provided by the US army CID, the detainee was shackled to the top of a doorframe with a gag in his mouth at the time he lost consciousness and became pulseless. The severe blunt force injuries, the hanging position, and the obstruction of the oral cavity with a gag contributed to this individual’s death. DOD 00329 refers to this case as “gagged in standing restraint” DOD 003329 refers to this case as “1 blunt force trama and choking; gagged in standing restraint.” DOD 003324 refers to this case with a note indicating “Q[uestioned] by OGA [Other Governmental Agency - non-military, often refers to CIA], gagged in standing restraint.” - ME04-14; AFIP Number: 2909185

That’s a torture crucifixion. Bodies (plural) were stashed at Abu Ghraib. We know from General Taguba’s report that degradation was an encouraged policy at the prison and along those lines, some US personal photographed each other in mocking poses over these same bodies:



Unfortunately, this allows a widow and son to, in turn, be photographed with documentation of the degredation:



Which, understandably, sours citizens against a foreign occupation, presumably leading to more of this:





Instead of connecting a “24” episode to your faith and your concience, perhaps you focus on rationalizing the very real deaths and torture which is occuring.

 

[SoCalRC]

That is one possible explanation. A more likely one, however, is that we disagree not with the Church but with your understanding of what she teaches. As I have never stated that I reject anything the Church teaches your statement is flatly untrue.

You may argue that I misunderstand her instructions but you may not charge that I reject them.

Ender

I’m sorry, you stated that the seemless view is the problem. I quoted the Church, in a document on voting, insisting that a comprehensive and seemless view is the only coherent one.

We are talking about a document from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by our last Pope, prepared by our current one as Prefect. Are you asserting that you are a better authority on the proper application of Catholic doctrine?

 

[Sham7]

“Pro choice” has alot of different meanings and it is unfair for those who think that they are so righteous under the banner of “ProLife” to keep thinking that they know the heart of another person or the mind for that matter. I have seen others, like me, try to express themselves as to being “ProLife” personally, but “ProChoice” in terms of politics.

Understand that I am not “Proabortion” and I do not accept your view that I am actively or passively. I actually am active in educating others as to the sin of abortion.

So, please get off your high horse and quit using sound bites of our faith to justify yourself or elevate yourself in your eyes.

Amen,
sham7

 

[SoCalRC]

The Church says: Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

Do you deny that?

No, that is what I have been saying, virtually in every post. What we disagree on is rather or the Church always equates abortion with murder and rather or not every aborted fetus is already infused with a soul.

I have quoted Popes, Doctors of the Church, Saints, and Doctrinal Notes supporting my position. You disagreed.

 

[SoCalRC]

The Didache prohibited abortion and it was published in the first century … the first written Catholic canon law.

Abortion was ALWAYS prohibited under the strictest of penalties including denial of holy communion even on one’s deathbed. Always.

Here is an interesting article … read it:

newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

Perhaps you should have read it more closely, from the article:

The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that “it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother.” Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: “Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?” The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: “No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for”. Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.

Notice the dates. The Church issued a decree in 1884 and 1889, and some questions about abortion and maternal health were not answered until 1902.

The Didache dates from the first half of the second century. Why then, did we make a Catechism change in the 1920’s?

We have always held abortion to be, in general, a moral sin, but it is gravely dishonest to say that our teaching has not evolved or that our perspective on the grievousness has not changed.

Consider Tertullian, one of the most often quoted apologists to demonstrate our long standing objection to abortion. Pope Benedict gave a speech praising Tertullian’s contributions and writings shortly after being elected Pope. But if we look carefully at two of his most often used quotes we will find that they are both from his treatise on the human soul. In between the two quotes we find him describing, in gruesome detail, a primitive partial birth abortion. And, here is the catch, he calls it a “necessary cruelty”, inargulably moral and compassionate. This would not match our current understanding and teaching. Nor would multiple Saints and Doctors of the Church, for example:

“The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs” - St. Jerome, letter to Aglasia

St. Jerome was following St. Augustine. St. Thomas Aquinas would agree 8 centuries later. It is important to note that all these theologians were aware of rudimentary human development. Early abortions did not look human in form, later abortions did. So their argument was not about science, but a theological perspective of the soul.

As I have quoted, from the Church, we have not dismissed this theological point of view even today. However, we argue that it is irrelevant.

 

[fix]

Do Embryos Have Souls?

Some scientists and philosophers will attempt to argue that if an early embryo might not yet have received its immortal soul from God, it must be OK to destroy that embryo for research since he or she would not yet be a person. But it would actually be the reverse; that is to say, it would be more immoral to destroy an embryo that had not yet received an immortal soul than to destroy an ensouled embryo…

Lies to Confuse.
The most common pro-abortion lie about Catholic Church teaching claims that the Church has not always condemned abortion. This particular lie has been effectively used by unscrupulous pro-abortion activists all over the world to confuse and neutralize their Catholic opposition…

 

[Ender]

I am “pro choice” but not in the sense that alot of “ProLife” catholics would define it.

On the one hand it is important to be clear and specific about the use of terms but on the other, I cannot shake the impression that much of the disagreement about these terms is nothing more than word games.

The Catholic church does not say that one has to be “ProChoice” or “ProLife” in the sense that the folks who created those terms meant them to be for rhetorical advantage.

It is common for the anti-abortion side to see both these terms as euphemisms meaning pro-abortion and anti-abortion. I’ll not try to define pro-choice for you: why don’t you give us your definition?

Most Catholics that I know oppose abortion in the ideal, but actually use birth control and choose other like things that are not consistent with the Faith as to honoring life.(yes sinful)
I agree that we humans are commanded not to kill. So, if we vote to go to war are we “Pro choice”? yep Ideally, we Catholics should not kill whether it is abortion, war, euthansia, or ??? That would be “Pro choice” in its purest sense!

The fact that no one seriously uses the term pro-choice to apply to the war in Iraq or the death penalty (or school vouchers, Social Security investments, or right to work laws) ought to be a significant clue as to what this term really means.

So, I say quit bickering over this point and just be active to defeat all these evils.

Doesn’t being pro-choice mean that we are justified in choosing not to defeat evil?

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, that is what I have been saying, virtually in every post. What we disagree on is rather or the Church always equates abortion with murder and rather or not every aborted fetus is already infused with a soul.

I have quoted Popes, Doctors of the Church, Saints, and Doctrinal Notes supporting my position. You disagreed.

No, you have pushed a red herring on us. The Church’s definitive statement is found in the Catechism, in paragraphs 2270 and following:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

Do you accept that or not?

 

[BamaRider]

Second, I’m pointing out that the scenario that you are playing our in your mind is the end game of epic and comprehensive incompetence in terms of actually protecting the public. If you really care about your niece, vote for politicians who fund real port security and programs to control the international flow of nuclear materials, not politicians who defund such programs and try to put ports under the control of Dubai. By the time life and death hinges on torturing the truth out of someone, the odds are stacked far against you. If the person is innocent, they’ll send you on a wild goose chase to make the torture stop (like ‘mobile biological labs’ in Iraq). If they are guilty, the abuse can steel their resolve (like the Iraqi General who turned himself in, but then stopped talking when the beatings began - he was beaten to death in a sleeping bag). Dying for something you believe in might be a foreign concept to you, but in a world with suicide bombers it is clearly an outlook some people have.

I don’t disagree with defending ports, and don’t agrue a few did some bad things, and they have been dealt with.

I do vote for the people who will best defend the country, but we just might disagree on who that is.

I’ll also go along with concept if it came down to pulling info out of kook, a lot of stuff went wrong to get to that point, but none of that matters at that point on how we got there.

Just like always, you avoided the question with long weather report, so once again I’m left to assume you’re not going to do anything to a terroists holding specific information about terror attack.

The stuff you put in that long tirade against the U.S. Military had nothing to do with the scenario we were talking about. What does Abu have to do with a kook with info about nuke?

Now how effective you’re gonna be finding out what ya need to know I dunno, but you gotta try, because the alternative is to do nothing, and you made it plain that’s what you would do-NOTHING.

Last, I’m baffled by your insistance on fanciful creations. You support very real and measurable torture:

I never said, I supported the kind of stuff that some bad seeds did in Abu. What I did say, if one of these kooks has information that can lead to prevention of a terroist attack, I’d be for what is necesary to prevent it. If you don’t agree with that fine, but don’t manufacture something.

What I am “telling” you can be broken down several ways. First, I’m telling you what the Church teaches. Rather or not you accept the Church’s teachings on the inalienable rights of the human person when it might cost you dearly is up to you. IE, rather or not your Christian values are something worth dying for is your choice, despite secular law and Church law to the contrary.

Defending myself, or supporting those that do, is not against my Chrisitian values. If it is against YOURS then I dunno. But when Vern confronted you with Church Canon that obviously says what it says about abortion, deatlh penalty, war, self defense, you say this-" rather or not your Christian values are something worth dying for is your choice, despite secular law and Church law to the contrary."

Which now tells me you think Christian Values and Church Law are in* conflict.*

But if anything you are predictable, so I’ll predict another looooooooong post about stuff not related to the discussion, where you avoid “yes I said that”, instead we’ll get something like a bunch of links or long paragraphs in a attempt to change the subject.

Your insitance at calling babies in the womb a “fetus” I think speaks volumes. A baby is a person, fetus sounds like it could be a lab rat. I’ll make it plain that’s just my opinion.

All your post you mention you’re against abortion, but I take in the same posts you don’t think a baby in the womb is a person? Can you clarify that with a yes or a no? Even a don’t know would be something I could understand. I don’t want a bunch of links, quotes from 200 years ago, just wanna know what the SoCal thinks.