G
goout
Guest
That’s the point I made.goout:
That doesn’t require being inconsistent. You can just say this a pressing issue that I think has primacy without denying others.
Credible Evangelizing and the importance of consistency
- Thread starter Motherwit
- Start date
- Status
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Many of those who are arguing in favor of an abortion ban would argue that this supports your notion of the government ensuring the rights of everyone (to life) while putting limits on the rights of individuals (to kill other individuals).
Can you explain with an example?
What I’m seeing is on the one hand people defending the unlimited right to have deadly guns, or the right not to have to wear a face mask, despite vulnerable others being sacrificed by that right.
If we are telling the government they have no authority to limit these behaviors in the interest of the vulnerable on the one hand, where is the credibility to demand they put limits on abortion, with the other hand?
What I’m seeing is on the one hand people defending the unlimited right to have deadly guns, or the right not to have to wear a face mask, despite vulnerable others being sacrificed by that right.
If we are telling the government they have no authority to limit these behaviors in the interest of the vulnerable on the one hand, where is the credibility to demand they put limits on abortion, with the other hand?
J
jeannetherese
Guest
What I am suggesting is that I think there is an internal inconsistency to the logic of your argument.
On the one hand, you seem to be arguing that pro-lifers are opposed to the state curbing some individual rights in order to protect the rights of everyone.
I pointed out that pro-life support for a ban of abortion shows this not to be the case. That support for a ban on abortion privileges the rights of all to life at the expense of the right of fewer than all (pregnant women and their abortionists) to take lives.
On the one hand, you seem to be arguing that pro-lifers are opposed to the state curbing some individual rights in order to protect the rights of everyone.
I pointed out that pro-life support for a ban of abortion shows this not to be the case. That support for a ban on abortion privileges the rights of all to life at the expense of the right of fewer than all (pregnant women and their abortionists) to take lives.
If someone could help me understand jeannetherese’s point I’d be grateful? I’ve read it over and over and can’t get it.
You’ve transposed that framework over my posts for some reason. It just isn’t there if you re read them. I didn’t identify the ‘pro life movement’ as the problem, but some people who have taken on that cause from an inconsistent place.
I’ve only watched 35 minutes, but will watch the rest later. But I do identify with what Fr is describing about Francis. Perhaps having done the Spiritual Exercises about 10 years ago and then have a couple of years of Spiritual Direction. When you go into the Gospels and be there with Jesus and all present, it does enhance the capacity to ‘walk in anothers shoes’.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Pope Francis is the best evangelizer that the Church has…and is reaching people in a way and by methods of proceeding that previous pontificates have not.
C
commenter
Guest
The secular culture is never all right or all wrong. It always teaches certain truths, which vary from time to time. It also ignores, or suppresses, other truths, which also varies over time.
The Church can acknowledge the truths which are currently popular and familiar. But it should emphasize those truths currently forgotten, unfamiliar, especially those currently suppressed.
The secular model of “consistency” is that all truths deserve equal time, that abortion is one issue out of 100, therefore it’s wrong to give it more than one percent of our attention.
The Church can acknowledge the truths which are currently popular and familiar. But it should emphasize those truths currently forgotten, unfamiliar, especially those currently suppressed.
The secular model of “consistency” is that all truths deserve equal time, that abortion is one issue out of 100, therefore it’s wrong to give it more than one percent of our attention.
G
goout
Guest
If you can’t acknowledge the right of a human being to live, all other claims to rights are meaningless chatter. Because all other human rights pre-suppose living human beings.jeannetherese:
If someone could help me understand jeannetherese’s point I’d be grateful? I’ve read it over and over and can’t get it.
Does that make sense? If one human being claims the right to kill others (or “tolerates” it), then the basis for human rights and human dignity is subjective. And all the environmental stewardship and welfare programs are swaying in the wind, according to the exercise of power at that moment.
That makes for a dangerous world ruled by the powerful at the expense of the weak.
In answer to your other question, that I am imposing the political framework, I will repost this:
It misunderstands the primacy of the right to live, which is the preeminent foundation of all other rights. And it subjects human rights to the moral authority of government.
Most other issues are matters of prudential judgment as to how they might be accomplished. And you seem to be making a clear appeal to governmental authority as the sacred authority here, but observe: this government, under which we live, sanctions the killing of children.
So, no, this government does not deserve respect for it’s consistency or it’s moral authority. It has abdicated it. We respect just laws, and do our best to respect human life in every way. But not because our government has earned moral authority, as you seem to be suggesting.
Last edited:
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I think that is very well said indeed.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Pope Francis has addressed the United Nations concerning abortion and the right to life as a universal issue:
"“Unfortunately, some countries and international institutions are also promoting abortion as one of the so-called ‘essential services’ provided in the humanitarian response to the pandemic,” Pope Francis said in his address to the UN Sept. 25.
“It is troubling to see how simple and convenient it has become for some to deny the existence of a human life as a solution to problems that can and must be solved for both the mother and her unborn child,” the pope said.
Speaking to the high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly via a video message, Pope Francis said that the problem of today’s “throwaway culture” was rooted in a disrespect for human dignity.
“At the origin of this ‘throwaway culture’ is a gross lack of respect for human dignity, the promotion of ideologies with reductive understandings of the human person, a denial of the universality of fundamental human rights, and a craving for absolute power and control that is widespread in today’s society. Let us name this for what it is: an attack against humanity itself,” he said."
Source:
"“Unfortunately, some countries and international institutions are also promoting abortion as one of the so-called ‘essential services’ provided in the humanitarian response to the pandemic,” Pope Francis said in his address to the UN Sept. 25.
“It is troubling to see how simple and convenient it has become for some to deny the existence of a human life as a solution to problems that can and must be solved for both the mother and her unborn child,” the pope said.
Speaking to the high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly via a video message, Pope Francis said that the problem of today’s “throwaway culture” was rooted in a disrespect for human dignity.
“At the origin of this ‘throwaway culture’ is a gross lack of respect for human dignity, the promotion of ideologies with reductive understandings of the human person, a denial of the universality of fundamental human rights, and a craving for absolute power and control that is widespread in today’s society. Let us name this for what it is: an attack against humanity itself,” he said."
Source:
- Status