Cruz Thread

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Well, of course it hasn’t because most parents - and I said most, not all - do not teach their children much of anything at all, let alone the sanctity of life.

I know. Those kids, which are now in their late teens and early twenties, are in my classes, and some of them don’t know the first thing about their own Catholic faith. They tell me their parents have “sleep in Sundays” rather then go to church.

People grow up with religious values, or they don’t.

The point is that the argument that “they did it before when it was illegal” is usually just code for “deep down, it’s not that important to me.”

Applied to any other crime, the argument gets laughed at. Why do we continue to ban rape when people still do it?

And the argument gets even weaker when discussing a practice akin in its pure evil to cooking humans alive in ovens during the Holocaust, just in far greater numbers.

People shouldn’t feel obliged to say “I personally oppose abortion.” It is written on our souls at birth by our Creator.

It’s no different than saying “I personally oppose molesting children and eating the flesh of humans.”

Well, so glad you personally oppose pedophilia and cannibalism. Perhaps a better approach to flesh-eating carnivorous humans and predatory perverts is not laws, but better education?

Or how about we do both?

 

[zz912]

Because Sarah Palin was a lunatic; she was not fit to govern the country; the fact that she was on the ticket said a lot about McCain, all bad. She reminds me of Trump in that regard. I am not a single issue voter. I think you can genuinely oppose abortion and vote Democrat. I support national health care (just like Trump and Sanders and Clinton!). I also support Obama on the environment. I vote for a candidate I believe to be the best qualified candidate in a particular race on a plurality of issues. I am an independent. I don’t regret voting for Obama in 2008; I do regret voting for him in 2012. (I did that because of Romney’s 47% comment, and Paul Ryan’s budget, also, frankly because Romney was a Mormon.)

I have not supported abortion personally for 20 years. And I don’t think Planned Parenthood does great things - and I think Trump is completely, openly lying about his position on this issue - and I think many of his supporters know this but don’t care, because, they too do not care about this issue enough to vote for a real prolife candidate. (he may personally be prolife but he has no intention of alienating his moderate East coast support, or large numbers of women across the country, women Trump desperately needs to win) In fact, many many Trumpers are prochoice, aka New York values. See Scott Brown, Giuliani. Planned Parenthood is terrified of Cruz, not Trump, for a reason. They are not stupid.

1. Sarah Palin wasn’t running for President.
2. Because Romney didn’t think it was a great use of resources to try and woo those who pay no income tax, that justifies voting for a virulently pro-abortion candidate?!?!
3. Because Romney’s Mormon, that justifies voting for a virulently pro-abortion candidate (who also isn’t Catholic)?!?!?
4. Paul Ryan’s budget increases were sufficiently big enough, so that justifies voting for the virulently pro-abortion candidate?!?!?!
5. If you voted for Obama twice, you supported abortion.

The lengths people will go to justify their cooperation and support for evil…

 

[zz912]

The point is that the argument that “they did it before when it was illegal” is usually just code for “deep down, it’s not that important to me.”

Applied to any other crime, the argument gets laughed at. Why do we continue to ban rape when people still do it?

And the argument gets even weaker when discussing a practice akin in its pure evil to cooking humans alive in ovens during the Holocaust, just in far greater numbers.

People shouldn’t feel obliged to say “I personally oppose abortion.” It is written on our souls at birth by our Creator.

It’s no different than saying “I personally oppose molesting children and eating the flesh of humans.”

Well, so glad you personally oppose pedophilia and cannibalism. Perhaps a better approach to flesh-eating carnivorous humans and predatory perverts is not laws, but better education?

Or how about we do both?

Well sums up the sheer lunacy of the “personally opposed to abortion, but…” argument

 

[grotto]

Personally, I don’t support it, Mary, but I think the US Constitution supports its legality. Blackmun explained that well. And I don’t think overturning Roe v Wade is the way to rid the US of abortion. People had abortions prior to Roe v Wade. The way to overcome it is to teach children the sanctity of ALL life as soon as they are able to learn.

---

The US Constitution supports abortion? You mean because a misguided and erroneous panel of judges appointed to the Supreme Court handed down a decision that is possible to overturn? Is that what you meant? Overturning Roe v Wade would go a long, long way in ridding the evil of abortion. When you say people had abortions prior to Roe v Wade, do you mean men and women as in generic “people”? Because abortion was committed prior to the error of Roe v Wade decision, do you feel that it should not be overturned? Murder was one of the first great acts of evil as we know, so because it has happened before it should be left to continue?

We are talking in reality about our government collecting tax dollars from the people to provide an abotoir of infants selling their body parts! Let’s not mince words about this.

 

[FollowChrist34]

1. Sarah Palin wasn’t running for President.
2. Because Romney didn’t think it was a great use of resources to try and woo those who pay no income tax, that justifies voting for a virulently pro-abortion candidate?!?!
3. Because Romney’s Mormon, that justifies voting for a virulently pro-abortion candidate (who also isn’t Catholic)?!?!?
4. Paul Ryan’s budget increases were sufficiently big enough, so that justifies voting for the virulently pro-abortion candidate?!?!?!
5. If you voted for Obama twice, you supported abortion.

The lengths people will go to justify their cooperation and support for evil…

As long as you are not supporting Trump and posting like this, we’re good. I assume you support Cruz?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Well sums up the sheer lunacy of the “personally opposed to abortion, but…” argument

Not really. You’re comparing persons who have been born to potential life. When does God infuse the living fetus with a soul? The Church does not teach a particular time because it says it does not know, and I linked to a priest who confirmed this previously. I don’t know when the fetus receives a soul. No one does but God.

Your argument is illogical because it compares people who definitely have immortal souls to fetuses that may or may not have immortal souls. It’s apples and oranges.

And that’s not an argument FOR abortion. It’s just pointing out the illogicality of your argument.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

---

The US Constitution supports abortion? You mean because a misguided and erroneous panel of judges appointed to the Supreme Court handed down a decision that is possible to overturn? Is that what you meant? Overturning Roe v Wade would go a long, long way in ridding the evil of abortion. When you say people had abortions prior to Roe v Wade, do you mean men and women as in generic “people”? Because abortion was committed prior to the error of Roe v Wade decision, do you feel that it should not be overturned? Murder was one of the first great acts of evil as we know, so because it has happened before it should be left to continue?

We are talking in reality about our government collecting tax dollars from the people to provide an abotoir of infants selling their body parts! Let’s not mince words about this.

Harry Blackmun and six other justices said that abortion follows the US Constitution. What are your qualifications to say they are misguided? In what school did you become a constitutional law scholar?

 

[zz912]

Not really. You’re comparing persons who have been born to potential life. When does God infuse the living fetus with a soul? The Church does not teach a particular time because it says it does not know, and I linked to a priest who confirmed this previously. I don’t know when the fetus receives a soul. No one does but God.

Your argument is illogical because it compares people who definitely have immortal souls to fetuses that may or may not have immortal souls. It’s apples and oranges.

And that’s not an argument FOR abortion. It’s just pointing out the illogicality of your argument.

CCC 366 The Church teaches that every **spiritual soul is created immediately **by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

382 “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity” (GS 14 § 1). The doctrine of the faith affirms that the spiritual and immortal soul is **created immediately **by God.

The Church teaches clearly. The soul is immediately created upon conception. And the Church also teaches clearly that at conception they are a human being, not a potential person. Your views are contrary to Church teaching.

 

[zz912]

As long as you are not supporting Trump and posting like this, we’re good. I assume you support Cruz?

Yes, I do.

 

[meltzerboy]

If abortion is so important to you, how come you voted for Obama twice?

If you experienced a change of mind, that would have come later than Trump’s change of heart on abortion.

IMO, Cruz is a fake tele-evangelist who tries to sound the right chord for the group he is wooing.

I’m afraid Cruz is a REAL televangelist, not a fake one.

 

[Peter_J]

As long as you are not supporting Trump and posting like this, we’re good. I assume you support Cruz?

Personally, I’m just glad that you regret helping Obama defeat Romney.

Edit: Well, and that you’re now supporting TC of course.

 

[meltzerboy]

CCC 366 The Church teaches that every **spiritual soul is created immediately **by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

382 “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity” (GS 14 § 1). The doctrine of the faith affirms that the spiritual and immortal soul is **created immediately **by God.

The Church teaches clearly. The soul is immediately created upon conception. And the Church also teaches clearly that at conception they are a human being, not a potential person. Your views are contrary to Church teaching.

But they are not contrary to the teachings of other religions, such as my own. Isn’t that the point: that different religions have different views on abortion? (Please refrain from the slavery analogy, if possible.)

 

[_Abyssinia]

The New York Sun’s endorsement editorial of Ted Cruz: nysun.com/editorials/cruzs-new-york-values/89541/

 

[FollowChrist34]

Personally, I’m just glad that you regret helping Obama defeat Romney.

Edit: Well, and that you’re now supporting TC of course.

The 2012 election Obama coattails in Washington State brought euthanasia, gay marriage and legal marijuana, all in one fell swoop. I knew I had made a mistake pretty much right off the bat (having voted no on all of those issues). Whip lash. (Washington voted 56% Obama, 42% Romney btw)

 

[Peter_J]

But they are not contrary to the teachings of other religions, such as my own. Isn’t that the point

Sadly, some people do see personhood as a religious question.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

CCC 366 The Church teaches that every **spiritual soul is created immediately **by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

382 “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity” (GS 14 § 1). The doctrine of the faith affirms that the spiritual and immortal soul is **created immediately **by God.

The Church teaches clearly. The soul is immediately created upon conception. And the Church also teaches clearly that at conception they are a human being, not a potential person. Your views are contrary to Church teaching.

We’ve been through this before. It does not say “immediately upon conception” or “immediately upon implantation,” or “immediately upon viability,” or “immediately upon birth.” The Church does not teach when this “immediately” happens.

Where does it say “the human soul is created immediately upon conception?” It doesn’t. No Church teaching does.

From “The Declaration on Procured Abortion”:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.”

The Catholic Church does NOT teach WHEN the immortal soul is infused. It’s stance is that it does not know. That it is created “immediately” is not in question. WHEN it’s created “immediately” is.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

CCC 366 The Church teaches that every **spiritual soul is created immediately **by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

382 “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity” (GS 14 § 1). The doctrine of the faith affirms that the spiritual and immortal soul is **created immediately **by God.

The Church teaches clearly. The soul is immediately created upon conception. And the Church also teaches clearly that at conception they are a human being, not a potential person. Your views are contrary to Church teaching.

I agree that the Church teaches this.

I’m confused that Lily thinks tha the existence of a soul is a legal argument when it is a religious one. If we are going to debate it on religious terms our Catholic faith condemns abortion from conception. The ensoulment question doesn’t come up for the Church regarding abortion.

Roe doesn’t mention the soul. Blackmun said he didn’t know if the fetus was a human person. He also said that if it were a human person than abortion could not be legal.

 

[meltzerboy]

Sadly, some people do see personhood as a religious question.

Don’t Catholics and Evangelicals see it as such, as well as Jews?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I agree that the Church teaches this.

I’m confused that Lily thinks tha the existence of a soul is a legal argument when it is a religious one. If we are going to debate it on religious terms our Catholic faith condemns abortion from conception. The ensoulment question doesn’t come up for the Church regarding abortion.

Roe doesn’t mention the soul. Blackmun said he didn’t know if the fetus was a human person. He also said that if it were a human person than abortion could not be legal.

No, I think it’s a religious one. From the “Declaration on Procured Abortion”:

**“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. **There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.”

The Catholic Church does NOT teach WHEN the human soul in infused. It never did.

Yes, it still condemns abortion. However, Harry Blackmun had to argue from a Constitutional standpoint. His arguments make perfect sense. Under the US Constitution, abortion cannot be denied. That does NOT means Catholics, or anyone else, have to have one.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

We’ve been through this before. It does not say “immediately upon conception” or “immediately upon implantation,” or “immediately upon viability,” or “immediately upon birth.” The Church does not teach when this “immediately” happens.

Where does it say “the human soul is created immediately upon conception?” It doesn’t. No Church teaching does.

From “The Declaration on Procured Abortion”:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.”

The Catholic Church does NOT teach WHEN the immortal soul is infused. It’s stance is that it does not know. That it is created “immediately” is not in question. WHEN it’s created “immediately” is.

Again, why is it called the FEAST OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION?

But again these are religious arguments. An atheist doesn’t believe in an immortal soul, but can recognize that I am alive for example. Legally what makes my life worth protecting? And without using the term soul.