Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[SoCalRC]

Is it also your contention that there is no substantial moral difference between the person (or party) who is pro-choice on abortion and the one who is pro-choice on torture?

First of all, it isn’t my place to make a relative moral judgment (see the Prodigal Son).

But in this case we are talking about the same thing. Remember, in the real world torture is not like TV. Nor is it frat boy type antics as Rush would have us believe. If you torture as policy, some people are going to die. Torture/murders are not an anomaly, but a natural consequence of the policy. Look at every regime that has resorted to torture.

So, if you support toture, you support outcomes like we are seeing from US policy now. Old men beaten to death in a sleeping bag, middle aged men dying from torture/crucifixion, etc.

Even when the autopsy does not read “homicide” for the manner of death, blood is often left on the torturer’s hands. For example, we have cases of female detainees who have committed suicide after being beaten and sexually abused.

The way I see it, a D&E abortion, to an ensouled fetus, is a torture murder. We believe that life is precious in “every stage” and in “every condition”. If you favor either affront to life, you are rejecting the scope of the teaching.

In another thread Vern noted that if abortion is legal, how can we convince people that it is wrong? I would counter, if we torture and kill fully formed human persons, with families and loved ones, how can we convince people that doing the same thing to a blob of tissue that has not yet taken human form is wrong?

I also would point out that the Church lists both abortion and torture as samples of the same thing, our belief in the inalienable rights of the human person:

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: “All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator” - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI

If you reject the foundation of the teaching, who can you claim to truly hold the teaching itself in a true Catholic sense?

 

[skatepixie]

Yes, I am pro-choice. I can either have sex or not have sex. That’s the only choice. Easy as that.

Amen!

Honestly, this is the problem with people refusing to say what things are. They want to kill babies, they call it choice. They treat children less well than animals.

 

[BamaRider]

The Ender asked a simple question of the SoCal-

Is it also your contention that there is no substantial moral difference between the person (or party) who is pro-choice on abortion and the one who is pro-choice on torture?

To which he got this answer talking about torture, that had NOTHING to do with the question. But the post does follow the same strategy on how to dodge giving a simple answer to a simple question.

I’d hate to know what ya might get if ya ask him a complex question LOL.

First of all, it isn’t my place to make a relative moral judgment (see the Prodigal Son).

But in this case we are talking about the same thing. Remember, in the real world torture is not like TV. Nor is it frat boy type antics as Rush would have us believe. If you torture as policy, some people are going to die. Torture/murders are not an anomaly, but a natural consequence of the policy. Look at every regime that has resorted to torture.

So, if you support toture, you support outcomes like we are seeing from US policy now. Old men beaten to death in a sleeping bag, middle aged men dying from torture/crucifixion, etc.

Even when the autopsy does not read “homicide” for the manner of death, blood is often left on the torturer’s hands. For example, we have cases of female detainees who have committed suicide after being beaten and sexually abused.

The way I see it, a D&E abortion, to an ensouled fetus, is a torture murder. We believe that life is precious in “every stage” and in “every condition”. If you favor either affront to life, you are rejecting the scope of the teaching.

In another thread Vern noted that if abortion is legal, how can we convince people that it is wrong? I would counter, if we torture and kill fully formed human persons, with families and loved ones, how can we convince people that doing the same thing to a blob of tissue that has not yet taken human form is wrong?

I also would point out that the Church lists both abortion and torture as samples of the same thing, our belief in the inalienable rights of the human person:

Quote:
The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: “All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator” - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI

If you reject the foundation of the teaching, who can you claim to truly hold the teaching itself in a true Catholic sense?

Now where in Ameica is this taking place? It is NOT the policy of America to torture people, have some people crossed the line? Yes, and they have been dealt with. But you make it sound like all across this nation citizens are rounded up and tortured. It is not happening here or Gitmo. There is no systematic torture taking place for crying out loud. But I can go to the phone book and find dozens of abortion clinics.

Now you can go find pics of rogue soldiers from 4 years ago, and those people have been punished, and if it happens in the future it will dealt with.

But I stand by what I said earlier-in extreme causes, if a individual has specific info to thwart a terrorist attack, I’m pretty much for whatever needs to be done, to prevent it, and I call that self defense. You don’t agree with that, and you’re entitled to your opinion.

In your view of things, if some captured Nazi in 1941 had info on when the next death squad was coming to town, you’d ask him nicley, and after that dimiss him, and let whatever happens happen.

But back to Ender’s question. I think this is his answer- he’s gonna ride the fence!

First of all, it isn’t my place to make a relative moral judgment

But who knows.

 

[fix]

It would be nice if we lived in a society that legally allowed murder, rape and bank robbery, but through teaching, counseling, and other options, no one chose to commit those acts.

If the law says abortion is a** right**, how do we convice people it’s ** wrong**?

Society must speak out – and society speaks through its laws.

Exactly, and the Church teaches:

"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

 

[SoCalRC]

The Ender asked a simple question of the SoCal-

To which he got this answer talking about torture, that had NOTHING to do with the question. But the post does follow the same strategy on how to dodge giving a simple answer to a simple question.

I’d hate to know what ya might get if ya ask him a complex question LOL.

Are you indicating that you could not understand the response? I can spell it out simply, I agree with the Church (quoted above), there is no moral difference, in fact, some abortions are torture murders in our faith.

Now where in Ameica is this taking place? It is NOT the policy of America to torture people, have some people crossed the line? Yes, and they have been dealt with. But you make it sound like all across this nation citizens are rounded up and tortured. It is not happening here or Gitmo. There is no systematic torture taking place for crying out loud.

I think we are back to the old problem of processing reality. Are you now calling the President of the United States a liar? Even Fox News has given up on the ‘few bad eggs’ talking point. Perhaps they have to repeat it frequently enough (and simply enough) to sink in?

But I can go to the phone book and find dozens of abortion clinics.

And your point being? Or is this just a verbal tic? I object to both abortion and torture. Your policy appears to be ‘I am pro life unless I am scared of something’, which is what Pope Benedict defines as moral relativism. If something is a vile affront to humanity, it remains so rather or not someone has skid marks in their shorts.

But I stand by what I said earlier-in extreme causes, if a individual has specific info to thwart a terrorist attack, I’m pretty much for whatever needs to be done, to prevent it, and I call that self defense. You don’t agree with that, and you’re entitled to your opinion.

It’s not my opinion that is the issue, but the Church’s. Torture is, in written Catholic Dogma, connected to abortion as an attack on the inalienable rights of the human person.

In your view of things, if some captured Nazi in 1941 had info on when the next death squad was coming to town, you’d ask him nicley, and after that dimiss him, and let whatever happens happen.

What a bizarre reference. Both Germany and Japan systemicly engaged in the torture (by modern international standards) of detainees. The US did not. It gave us tremendous credibility in the post conflict war crimes trials.

Notice also that we defeated two powerful enemies and had rebuilt the industrial strength of much of the world by now in WWII. We’ve spent a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of human lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we no longer can even keep the Green Zone safe (Because of repeated mortar attacks, Secretary Rice could not dedicate a plaque in the green zone during her recent surprise visit). In Afgahnistan, the military reports that we are, in fact, losing, and desperately need more troops - which we do not have (we just learned that the military increased the use of ‘stop loss’ involuntary service last year, substantially, despite the President’s and Secretary Gates promises to the contrary).

But back to Ender’s question. I think this is his answer- he’s gonna ride the fence!

But who knows.

No, I was clear and not ambivilent. Just as you are stating, clearly, you disagree with the Mother Church on a pro-life issue (see your quote above), I was stating that I do not. Our Catholic teaching on life is, I believe, true and correct.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What about ectopic pregnancies? The secular world considers their termination abortions. You have repeatedly argued that those terminations are just and reasonable.

What about uterine cysts? The fate of some fertilized zygotes - they even retain DNA unique from the mother. You have previously stated that you consider them human beings. Does that mean that it should be illegal to have a cancerous one removed?

For Catholics, it is a problem. The Church has spoken, emphatically, that we cannot endorse or support laws that attack human life. That said, some aspects of our teachings (ex. no abortions even to save the life of the mother) are not widely accepted even in the moral certainty of the lay faithful.

What Brian B does hit on is the concept that societal attitudes and behavior must fundementally change. If history demonstrates anything, it is that ‘prohibition’ does not work, rather it is alcohol, other illegal drugs, or abortion. Now that about 15% (and rising) of the abortions are chemical, a prohibition approach succeeding is even more improbable.

What about the argument over stone-boiling versus using those new-fangled pots?

There are pregnancies where the child cannot be saved.

There may be pregnancies where both mother and child will die.

And there may be pregnancies where the mother can be saved, but the child cannot. In such a case, it is permissible to save the mother?

 

[SoCalRC]

What about the argument over stone-boiling versus using those new-fangled pots?

There are pregnancies where the child cannot be saved.

There may be pregnancies where both mother and child will die.

And there may be pregnancies where the mother can be saved, but the child cannot. In such a case, it is permissible to save the mother?

In the Catholic faith, not at the expense of the life of the fetus. Two natural deaths are better than one murder, because the latter potentially comes at the expense of eternal life.

Look at what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about what you had previously proposed, removing the fetus indirectly and letting nature take its course:

“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.”

newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

The concept is rejected, in general, and again in the specific case of ectopic pregnancy.

So, as with the death penalty, compromise on euthanasia and the rights of the human embryo, etc., we have another case where your absolute moral conscience is not in agreement with Rome. Are you endorsing that Rome’s views on abortion be strictly reflected in US secular law, or your own, looser view? That’s the dilemna I mentioned above.

 

[Ender]

First of all, it isn’t my place to make a relative moral judgment (see the Prodigal Son).

No, I was clear and not ambivilent.

I accept that your answer was not ambivalent; it was evasive. Since you didn’t respond at all to my analysis of your position I will assume that you basically agree that the term “pro-life” is inapplicable to any individual or party that is not 100% in line with Church teaching on all life issues and further (based on your Prodigal Son response) that it is improper to make the relative moral judgment that it is worse to kill a million people than to kill ten.

It’s not my opinion that is the issue, but the Church’s. Torture is, in written Catholic Dogma, connected to abortion as an attack on the inalienable rights of the human person.

No it isn’t.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

In the Catholic faith, not at the expense of the life of the fetus. Two natural deaths are better than one murder, because the latter potentially comes at the expense of eternal life.

Look at what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about what you had previously proposed, removing the fetus indirectly and letting nature take its course:

newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

The concept is rejected, in general, and again in the specific case of ectopic pregnancy.

So, as with the death penalty, compromise on euthanasia and the rights of the human embryo, etc., we have another case where your absolute moral conscience is not in agreement with Rome. Are you endorsing that Rome’s views on abortion be strictly reflected in US secular law, or your own, looser view? That’s the dilemna I mentioned above.

So you say.

Given that in all the study I have done so far, I have found many experts who say there are no cases where abortion under any name is necessary to save the mother’s life, the issue is moot.

I suspect that if there** were** such a case, the Pope would not be bound by the Catholic Encyclopedia, though.

 

[BamaRider]

think we are back to the old problem of processing reality. Are you now calling the President of the United States a liar? Even Fox News has given up on the ‘few bad eggs’ talking point. Perhaps they have to repeat it frequently enough (and simply enough) to sink in?

I don’t believe it is American policy to tortue people for the heck of it. I would not accept that premise no matter who the President is, and what party is in power. You have a very dim view of your country.

It’s not my opinion that is the issue, but the Church’s. Torture is, in written Catholic Dogma, connected to abortion as an attack on the inalienable rights of the human person.

I agree with this. Abortion is tortue for the baby in the wormb.

What a bizarre reference. Both Germany and Japan systemicly engaged in the torture (by modern international standards) of detainees. The US did not. It gave us tremendous credibility in the post conflict war crimes trials.

I agree it is bizzare but in your comments above, you are comparing YOUR country to these 2 awful regimes when you say it is American policy to torture people. Here it is again to remind people of what ya said-

In regards to using torture as USA policy I said it was not true, but you then you say-

think we are back to the old problem of processing reality. Are you now calling the President of the United States a liar? Even Fox News has given up on the ‘few bad eggs’ talking point. Perhaps they have to repeat it frequently enough (and simply enough) to sink in?

Now I didn’t accuse you of anything, I’m just stating what YOU said, and if you believe THAT, you are placing the USA on the same moral equivalency as those regimes, and I take exception to that.

In my view, if a Nazi courier was captured on the way back from Himmler’s dachau, I wouldn’t care if he was hung up by his boots to find out where the next death sqaud was goin, I call that self defense, and I’m allowed that. But in yours, you feed him coffee and cupcakes.

And if Bin Laden’s persoanl courier gets picked up on his way to the next cave by Navy Seals, then I’ll leave it to the guys on the ground to interrogate him, I’m not gonna second guess what they do, to protect this country. If they do not carry out that duty honorably, I trust those in charge to deal with them. It is obvious he would have more info then average kook picked up on the battlefield, and will need a different line of questioning.

As far at the other comments about WWII vs, Iraq I don’t know the revelance. I agree with ya though, perhaps if we went after them they way we did our foes in WWII, things would be better, but folks like YOU, are never gonna stand for that. So which will it be? Fight it like we are, or make a WWII total commitment? No wait, yours would be lose the war!

No, I was clear and not ambivilent. Just as you are stating, clearly, you disagree with the Mother Church on a pro-life issue (see your quote above), I was stating that I do not. Our Catholic teaching on life is, I believe, true and correct.

I believe I have the right to defend myself, and my own, and I don’t think that puts me in conflict. Please don’t say I’m pro torture of people for the heck of it, I’m not.

One last question, is it your belief hanging a Al Q courier up by his boots for vital info about upcming attacks wrong? Don’t go into about “well we don’t know what he knows, we really don’t know who he is, we can’t be sure etc.” Lets go with the fact the guy is WHO he is, what would you do with him?

 

[Tick_Dawk]

THANK YOU! THAT’S A GREAT POINT!

If we didn’t have abortion, then we wouldn’t be able to choose between good and evil. Heck, if there was no evil in the world and we couldn’t choose between the right and wrong thing, there’d be no sin. To be good is to choose the right thing; without a choice, there’s no right or wrong.

We’re all pro-choice. The people who are pro-life have just chosen to condemn abortion.

 

[fix]

without a choice, there’s no right or wrong.

Really?

 

[SoCalRC]

I accept that your answer was not ambivalent; it was evasive. Since you didn’t respond at all to my analysis of your position I will assume that you basically agree that the term “pro-life” is inapplicable to any individual or party that is not 100% in line with Church teaching on all life issues and further (based on your Prodigal Son response) that it is improper to make the relative moral judgment that it is worse to kill a million people than to kill ten.

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. I do hold that the term “pro-life” is misleading. As far as I can tell, neither US major political party accurately reflects Catholic pro-life teaching.

Your reference to a million vs. ten is interesting. When I mentioned that I was suprised that so many conservatives are concerned about my potentially having to pay estate tax (largely on unrealized capital gains), something that touches just a small smattering of individuals. You commented that scope does not alter morality, an injustice is an injustice.

Is that a principle that you only apply to money and property? I thought that the reason we objected to abortion was that we view each life as a unique creation of God, who can and does love us each infinately. That is, regardless of “stage” or “condition”, every human life is to be treasured as our own. For most, ten vs. a million, would mean little comfort if they were one of the ten.

Your reasoning also strikes me as remarkably similiar to the excuses made by those compromising on abortion. The Pope has identified climate change as a “right to life” issue. Since it potentially effects billions, should abortion be ignored in favor of it? Others point to poverty in the world community, why worry about 25,000,000 abortions each year when two billion lives will end prematurely for the want of nothing more than clean, reliable, water and rudimentary health care?

They all sound like moral relativism to me. As the Church has noted, when it comes to fundemental and inalienable rights, the essence of moral law, our Christian obligation becomes urgent and clear.

No it isn’t.

Well, the Catechism denounces it by name. It also prohibits it, without exception, in the case of war (CCC 2313). And, of course, Pope John Paul II quotes the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council here (ie, “Dogmatic”):

In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: “All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator” - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, #38, quoting GAUDIUM ET SPES

I hear the second paragraph quoted a lot, but the first and third are often ignored.

 

[SoCalRC]

Given that in all the study I have done so far, I have found many experts who say there are no cases where abortion under any name is necessary to save the mother’s life, the issue is moot.

How odd, aren’t you the one arguing that the 100,000+ abortions of ectopic pregnancies each year in the US is licit?

I suspect that if there** were** such a case, the Pope would not be bound by the Catholic Encyclopedia, though.

Another odd comment, the encyclopedia entry is a collection of quotes from the Tribunal of the Holy Office - ie, the Church. The entry itself was approved by a Cardinal. If you like, we can go through all the Church documents in detail, but the synopsis will remain fundementally accurate.

 

[SoCalRC]

I don’t believe it is American policy to tortue people for the heck of it. I would not accept that premise no matter who the President is, and what party is in power.

We live in a mostly free country, though the Yoo memo has shown us that the current administration is not big on things like the 4th amendment to the Constitution. In a free country belief in objective reality is wholly optional.

I am not making accusations, I am simply responding to what the current adminstration has conceded and the documented evidence of what has occured.

You have a very dim view of your country.

Let’s review, I’ve volunteered and served my country in a time of war, a war I did not personally support. I’ve argued that it is every generation’s responsibility to pay for its own national defense. I’ve reached into my own pocket to directly support the troops in a war I have considered stupid and ill advised from the beginning.

My primary arguments have been along the lines of sacrificing liberty for the sake of safety is cowardice and misguided, and our Catholic beliefs about the value and inalienable rights of the human person are worth standing up for, even at the risk of personal safety.

Your position appears to be, patriotism is a willingness to spend whatever it takes in terms of other people’s blood and my great grandchildren’s money…

No wait, yours would be lose the war!

How odd for you to proclaim kinship to WW-II when it is you, not I, that insist that victory must come without either your service, or even your funds. If you won’t pay for it and you won’t fight it, how could you possibly expect to win?

One last question, is it your belief hanging a Al Q courier up by his boots for vital info about upcming attacks wrong? Don’t go into about “well we don’t know what he knows, we really don’t know who he is, we can’t be sure etc.” Lets go with the fact the guy is WHO he is, what would you do with him?

If you KNOW who he is, the only reason to pick him up would be for the hard intelligence, on his person, computer, cell phones, etc. The smart thing to do would be to follow him and use your awareness of him to find and neutralize a larger threat. That is how we (and our allies) have scored our significant ‘wins’ in anti-terrorism since 9/11. In fact, you may recall that several foreign anti-terrorism organizations were furious with the US just before the last presidential election. The US government made a press release about a foiled terrorist plot, forcing foreign authorities to move more quickly than planned. They wanted to use additional time to find more terrorists.

Try thinking it about it this way. We are talking about a group of people who will strap bombs onto their bodies and blow themselves up in a group of people. What possible reason do you have to believe that the threat of physical harm would shake them? The weak and clueless will tell you whatever they think you want to hear to make the agony stop - wasting time and resources. The true believers will just steel their resolve, confident that they are to be rewarded in the next life…

BTW, no one is occusing you of being ‘willy nilly’ pro-torture. It is a ‘special’ case for you, just as some abortions are a ‘special’ case for Vern. You are welcome to your beliefs, but they do raise the question of how you both can, in good faith, criticize others for compromising on right to life issues.

 

[BamaRider]

If you KNOW who he is, the only reason to pick him up would be for the hard intelligence, on his person, computer, cell phones, etc. The smart thing to do would be to follow him and use your awareness of him to find and neutralize a larger threat. That is how we (and our allies) have scored our significant ‘wins’ in anti-terrorism since 9/11. In fact, you may recall that several foreign anti-terrorism organizations were furious with the US just before the last presidential election. The US government made a press release about a foiled terrorist plot, forcing foreign authorities to move more quickly than planned. They wanted to use additional time to find more terrorists.

Try thinking it about it this way. We are talking about a group of people who will strap bombs onto their bodies and blow themselves up in a group of people. What possible reason do you have to believe that the threat of physical harm would shake them? The weak and clueless will tell you whatever they think you want to hear to make the agony stop - wasting time and resources. The true believers will just steel their resolve, confident that they are to be rewarded in the next life…

BTW, no one is occusing you of being ‘willy nilly’ pro-torture. It is a ‘special’ case for you, just as some abortions are a ‘special’ case for Vern. You are welcome to your beliefs, but they do raise the question of how you both can, in good faith, criticize others for compromising on right to life issues.

]

If the our guys decide to follow him, or hang him up by his boot straps, I don’t care, I’m gonna leave THAT decesion up to them LOL. And if he wanted to go on to the 73 virgins I’d accomodate before I let him take innocents with him.

We live in a mostly free country, though the Yoo memo has shown us that the current administration is not big on things like the 4th amendment to the Constitution. In a free country belief in objective reality is wholly optional.

I am not making accusations, I am simply responding to what the current adminstration has conceded and the documented evidence of what has occured.

So you are backtracking on your earlier post that torture is a routine arm of American policy in Iraq and elsewhere?

My primary arguments have been along the lines of sacrificing liberty for the sake of safety is cowardice and misguided, and our Catholic beliefs about the value and inalienable rights of the human person are worth standing up for, even at the risk of personal safety.

What American’s liberty has been sacrificed in the war on terror? Has yours? Mine? Anyone? And Catholic beliefs have been defended by this country more then any other.

How odd for you to proclaim kinship to WW-II when it is you, not I, that insist that victory must come without either your service, or even your funds. If you won’t pay for it and you won’t fight it, how could you possibly expect to win?

I’m 52 years old SoCal what will you have me do? Go enlist? LOL. I’ve said many many times here, military service is not a conditon to run for office or have an opinion. And I have paid and will continue to pay whatever is necesary to win this war.

And I was 12 years old when Vietnam was goin on, so that meanss I can’t have an opion on that either. LOL…

Vern get me outta here this is hopeless. LOL SoCal just said the current adminstration has torn up the 4th amendment

 

[BamaRider]

Pulled this from SoCal’s quote from Church Doctrine-

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

And this quote right here, (my highlights) ends the argument on a liberal pro choice candidate. None of his social agenda on minimum wage, free healthcare, free college educations, welfare checks, et al means a hoot, if he does NOT defend the right to life. So looks like SoCal is gonna be voting with ME come this fall LOL.

 

[SoCalRC]

]
So you are backtracking on your earlier post that torture is a routine arm of American policy in Iraq and elsewhere?

Not at all, I am simply taking the position that if the President of the United States claims that harsh interogation techniques were approved at the highest levels of the government, in violation of international law, I believe him.

After all, there is plenty of supporting evidence. Everything from dead bodies and autoopsies to official memo’s and sworn testimony.

I also understand that you are free to live in a state of denial.

]
What American’s liberty has been sacrificed in the war on terror? Has yours? Mine? Anyone?

We now have warrentless wiretapping of US citizens, on US soil. We now have the US government arguing that the Constitution allows the President to detain, indefinately, US citizens without any right to due process. The Vice President has argued that he is not even constrained by the Constitution, but is a unique branch of the government with no checks and balances at all.

]
And Catholic beliefs have been defended by this country more then any other.

What a silly thing to say! I gew up in a house without indoor plumbing because my father would not lie about being Catholic for the sake of a job. For most of US history we have been a villified minority.

Among industrialized nations we stand nearly alone in opposition to Rome’s position on the death penalty and nearly alone in opposition to the Pope on Iraq.

The GOP you support does take its ‘religious base’ seriously, so seriously that a group of leaders from it have a weekly conference call with the White House. 3 of those leaders have publicly expressed their belief that Catholics are not even Christians, but poly-theist pagans who worship Mary. Two have argued that God is angry with America for even tolerating our existance.

Considering that you are not big on reading the sorts of long, wordy things the Church produces, but Evangelical Protestant thought is readily delivered in tiny sound bites to you daily, your confusion is perhaps understandable.

]
I’m 52 years old SoCal what will you have me do? Go enlist? LOL. I’ve said many many times here, military service is not a conditon to run for office or have an opinion. And I have paid and will continue to pay whatever is necesary to win this war.

And I was 12 years old when Vietnam was goin on, so that meanss I can’t have an opion on that either. LOL…

Are you incouraging everyone in your family and circle of friends to enlist? Are you pressuring the politicians you support to set a good example and encourage their service age children to serve?

Are you calling for a proper draft, instead of an immoral back door draft so that this conflict, which you consider essential to win is a burden more fairly shared?

Are you insisting that you, and the rest of your generation at least pay for the war (since you must have others fight it for you)?

Are you demanding that your GOP stop protecting rampant profiteering, particularly at the expense of critical items like body armor?

Are you demanding that vets of the war be treated properly? Are you holding your elected official accountable for attempting to conceal the problems these vets currently face?

cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/21/cbsnews_investigates/main4032921.shtml

The biggest problem I have always had with the adminsitration’s ‘sincerity’ on Iraq is the contradiction between statements and actions. If a person truly believes that this is a clash of civilizations that must be won, then there would not be the obvious reluctance to ask society to make reasonable sacrifices to support the effort.

]
Vern get me outta here this is hopeless. LOL SoCal just said the current adminstration has torn up the 4th amendment

Actually, the Bush Justice Department said that, officially. They covered that one on Fox News as well. Perhaps the story was too long to hold your attention.

A 37-page October 23, 2001 memo by John Yoo titled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States” stated that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions on unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply to U.S. military operations on U.S. soil in the name of defending against terrorism. The existence of this memo, which has not itself been released, was made public on Tuesday when a March 14, 2003 memo was released, which stated in a footnote that “Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.” - Fox News, April 4, 2008

 

[SoCalRC]

Pulled this from SoCal’s quote from Church Doctrine-

And this quote right here, (my highlights) ends the argument on a liberal pro choice candidate. None of his social agenda on minimum wage, free healthcare, free college educations, welfare checks, et al means a hoot, if he does NOT defend the right to life.

That’s called Cafateria Catholicism. You are picking a portion and both elevating it’s status and compressing its meaning. Notice it does not say ‘abortion’, but “right to life”. You have to look to the paragraph that proceeds it and the one that follows it to get the full definition of what that term means.

Of course, you are also lobbing in red herrings (can you even help yourself?) When have I talked about free education in this context? We are disagreeing on torturing human beings to death.

So looks like SoCal is gonna be voting with ME come this fall LOL.

That is illogical. You publicly reject portions of Catholic pro-life teaching. According to the Church:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

That means I cannot, in good concience, vote for you because doing so would be an attack on “the essence of moral law”.

Don’t feel bad, this happens a lot. Folks get so convinced that they already ‘know’ what the Church teaches that they look at a quote without reading it closely. Much like Vern howing when I brought up the distinction between “human life” and “human person” in our teaching. He kept quoting the Catechism without noticing that it, in fact, used the term “human life”, as I had stated, and that the distinction was explained in Doctrinal Notes from the Church.

Similarly, another poster once howled that I was miss representing Church teaching on euthanasia. Once I finally got him to post something from the Church, I reposted my original statement next to it and pointed out that they were essentially identical when compared word for word.

You’re so used to collapsing “right to life” to “abortion” (and collapsing ‘abortion’ to political voting), that you already have a perceived notion of what the quote means. But if you read all of #38 in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI and EVANGELUM VITAE, you will see that our concept of “right to life” is expansive - look at the small section I quoted: “every phase”, “every condition”.

 

[BamaRider]

Are you incouraging everyone in your family and circle of friends to enlist? Are you pressuring the politicians you support to set a good example and encourage their service age children to serve?

What does this have to do with anything? I support the war, and WHOEVER decides to join the military. But no, I don’t actively recruit, for the Army. I’ll leave that to them. Again, NONE of the that means you can’t run for office, but I’m thinking only 1 of 3 candidates has any military service so that limiits your choices on who YOU vote for.

What a silly thing to say! I gew up in a house without indoor plumbing because my father would not lie about being Catholic for the sake of a job. For most of US history we have been a villified minority.

And this is the fault of the US govt? I’d say it was the fault of the individual. There are laws that say he can’t do that. Are you saying he filed and complaint and nothing was checked out? What state did this take place in? That must have been a long time ago. If you were in Vietnam that makes you older then me and I’m 52 and you were little lets call it the late 50s early 60s when this happened. Goodness that was 50 yearr ago, you think that goes on NOW? Why do you bring up something that happened so long ago? It doesnt’ have ANYTHING to do with 2008.

Is there prejuidice in this country, yes, but what I’m telling you it is NOT sytematic, nor is it public policy or a institution.

I don’t believe the 4th amendment is in danger LOL.

The GOP you support does take its ‘religious base’ seriously, so seriously that a group of leaders from it have a weekly conference call with the White House. 3 of those leaders have publicly expressed their belief that Catholics are not even Christians, but poly-theist pagans who worship Mary. Two have argued that God is angry with America for even tolerating our existance.

Does this mean you think the GOP is dominated by Protestant right wingers who are vehentmently anti Catholic, and think we are the cause of Americas problems??

How do you get up in the morning facing all this?? LOL. I’ve never run into anything like that living in Alabama, the heart or Eval land. Now is there some anti Catholicism being spewed from form a few pulpits in this area? Probably, but it is not mainstream, and I don’t worry about it. I certainly don’t think the GOP and the Evals are in cohoots to undermine Rome. You gotta be kidding me?

What the heck is goin on in Southern California??? Spent time there, my guess the populace there is 50% Catholic? Is there alot of anti Catholicim there?

Are you calling for a proper draft, instead of an immoral back door draft so that this conflict, which you consider essential to win is a burden more fairly shared?

This is not without some merit. But if your think it is only the poor underpriviledged fighting this war, you better check again. They are mostly white, middle class, from the rural areas and small towns of this country. Don’t belive me, go to Pendleton and take a look at a basic training classes. I was there in 2007, I’d say the recruit classes I saw were 90% white? But thats just what I saw. You can read about that visit and see pics on my blog.

If the military came forward and said they needed a draft I’d support it, can you imagine the outcry of the left at such request? Would you support it?

Among industrialized nations we stand nearly alone in opposition to Rome’s position on the death penalty and nearly alone in opposition to the Pope on Iraq.

Find me a quote where the Holy Father has called for unilateral withdraw from Iraq, in fact I think he has said just the opposite. I tend to agree with ya on the DP issue.

The biggest problem I have always had with the adminsitration’s ‘sincerity’ on Iraq is the contradiction between statements and actions. If a person truly believes that this is a clash of civilizations that must be won, then there would not be the obvious reluctance to ask society to make reasonable sacrifices to support the effort.

And I agree with this, the administration should’ve done a better job of what is exactly at stake here, and what might need to be done to bring this to close expeditiously. As with Israel and her enemies, we won’t have peace till one side decimates the other and removes all their ability to make war. IE Germany and Japan.

I’m glad we can agree on that premise.

A 37-page October 23, 2001 memo by John Yoo titled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States” stated that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions on unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply to U.S. military operations on U.S. soil in the name of defending against terrorism. The existence of this memo, which has not itself been released, was made public on Tuesday when a March 14, 2003 memo was released, which stated in a footnote that “Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.” - Fox News, April 4, 2008

1( the American military is not conducting operations against US citizens on American soil.

2( you still noyt brought forward a name of any American who was seized, house searched, etc without a warrant.

And I was suppose to cut grass today.