Does obama have absolute moral characgter?

[Newbie2]

Yes, the Church has always condemned abortion as a sin. No, the Church has not always considered abortion to be homicide (i.e. the destruction of a human soul). Even Aquinas thought ensoulment happened well after conception.

Essentially it’s the difference between “contraception is a sin” and “murder is a sin.” Would you agree with this sentiment?

It is unreasonable to claim that human reason and moral sense alone dictate belief in a universal prohibition of abortion, and it is also unreasonable to expect a non-Catholic to hold Catholic beliefs on ensoulment at conception.

I have no disagreement with believing he is in error, just with characterizations of him as an innately evil person because of this particular difference.

How about we characterize him as evil based on his support of legislation that would allow health care workers to allowed botched-abortion babies to die without treatment?

Evil enough for us to agree upon?

 

[fix]

Yes, the Church has always condemned abortion as a sin. No, the Church has not always considered abortion to be homicide (i.e. the destruction of a human soul). Even Aquinas thought ensoulment happened well after conception.

Canon law does not determine the morality of abortion. It asumes it is seriously wrong and applies a penalty. The Church may consider various theological opinions without teaching any one of them is irreformable.

Essentially it’s the difference between “contraception is a sin” and “murder is a sin.” Would you agree with this sentiment?

Not sure of you pooint here but I would say that not all grave sin is equal or should be treated the same under civil law. But, we know that an unborn baby is in fact a baby.

 

[DavidHume]

How about we characterize him as evil based on his support of legislation that would allow health care workers to allowed botched-abortion babies to die without treatment?

Evil enough for us to agree upon?

factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.”

 

[DavidHume]

Not sure of you pooint here but I would say that not all grave sin is equal or should be treated the same under civil law. But, we know that an unborn baby is in fact a baby.

You may know that an embryo must be treated as a baby would be, but you know it from your faith and Catholic teaching, not through the exercise of reason and human moral judgment alone.

 

[DavidHume]

Canon law does not determine the morality of abortion. It asumes it is seriously wrong and applies a penalty. The Church may consider various theological opinions without teaching any one of them is irreformable.

Yes, but murder is a clear offense against the natural moral law whereas contraception is not. It takes revelation and commitment to the Catholic faith to understand that contraception is wrong, and it takes the same to understand that human life begins at conception.

It does not take any revelation to understand that murder is wrong. That law is embedded in the human conscience.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of “pro-choice” people and the vast majority of civil laws do not consider abortion to be murder. In contrast, nearly everyone considers the murder of a born person to be gravely wrong, and all societies have laws against it.

This demonstrates the difference between the “self evidence” of the natural moral law and the other moral laws revealed through Scripture and the Church.

In my opinion we should reserve the bare adjective “evil” for people that unrepentantly transgress the natural moral law, not those who transgress the revealed laws of our religions of choice. (Those people are sinners, who have committed evil but are likely not any more evil than anyone else and can certainly be redeemed).

 

[wapsi]

No, why should any private organization cover up anything, because the President requests it? That request should have never been made, and Georgetown should burn for covering up their symbols! That is no longer a Catholic university. They made their choice.

That is fine, and I can see your point. But the fault in this situation lies with Georgetown, and not with President Obama.

 

[elts1956]

Tom Ridge is a Catholic and is obliged to help make the Church’s moral teachings on abortion clear to the world. This can include declining an honorary degree from a Catholic university to avoid giving the appearance that the Church sanctions the positions he takes as a politician.

Barack Obama is not a Catholic and is thus not so obliged.

If you had read the reasoning Tom Ridge gave regarding his refusal to appear, you would have noted it was the welfare of the students he was concerned about. He knew his appearance on campus would cause controversy and disruption to the student’s commencement.

So you are saying because bo isn’t Catholic, he would not be morally responsible for anyone but himself when he put in his appearance at NDU?

 

[elts1956]

Tom Ridge is a Catholic and is obliged to help make the Church’s moral teachings on abortion clear to the world. This can include declining an honorary degree from a Catholic university to avoid giving the appearance that the Church sanctions the positions he takes as a politician.

Barack Obama is not a Catholic and is thus not so obliged.

You may know that an embryo must be treated as a baby would be, but you know it from your faith and Catholic teaching, not through the exercise of reason and human moral judgment alone.

You have got to be kidding.

For me, the realization of the evil of abortion did not come about extrinsically, but intrinsically from within. I didn’t even know what the concept of abortion was when I was in Grade, High School and most of college. “Thou shall not kill” is an Absolute written on my heart and in my soul. It was not tatooed on my forehead by the Church.

 

[Newbie2]

factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

"It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.”

And Obama fought vigorously against “partial-term” abortions and for the notion of strong protections of “Botched abortion” babies. Hardly.

But more to the point. Directly supporting the killing fetuses of any age is a moral acceptable activity? Yes or No?

 

[DavidHume]

You have got to be kidding.

For me, the realization of the evil of abortion did not come about extrinsically, but intrinsically from within. I didn’t even know what the concept of abortion was when I was in Grade, High School and most of college. “Thou shall not kill” is an Absolute written on my heart and in my soul. It was not tatooed on my forehead by the Church.

I assume you’re a vegetarian then?

The position of most pro-abortion-rights people is that destroying an embryo or fetus in early development is not the same as killing a human being, just as killing an animal to eat is not the same as killing a human being. That’s why Roe v. Wade bothered to mention viability, and why many states already ban or heavily restrict abortions past viability.

It is only through divine revelation and Church teachings that Catholics and other Christians know that God wants a zygote treated exactly the same as an infant. There is no self-evident natural reason for believing this – without accepting this religious dogma, viability is another alternative boundary accepted by many people.

You might get a little more traction with the other side if you didn’t characterize them all as evil willful murderers – just a friendly suggestion.

 

[Toughguy]

wapsi;5227343]

That is fine, and I can see your point. But the fault in this situation lies with Georgetown, and not with President Obama.

I agree, Georgetown is fault, big time. But the fact that Obama requested this, only reaffirms his Liberal ideology even more. As an American President, he is despicable. He should be chatised for making that bogus request, and Georgetown should not be considered Catholic.

 

[Newbie2]

It is only through divine revelation and Church teachings that Catholics and other Christians know that God wants a zygote treated exactly the same as an infant. There is no self-evident natural reason for believing this – without accepting this religious dogma, viability is another alternative boundary accepted by many people.

It’s not self-evident that if one terminates the life of a zygote that it will not then develop into a human being?

It really seems a stretch with our current medical knowledge that such is not a self-evident truth: Early embryo develops into fetus, fetus developes into infant, infant into child, child to adult. Take the life along any stage of this development and you’ve deprived a human adult of their life.

Rationalism at it’s best, here, folks.

 

[DavidHume]

It’s not self-evident that if one terminates the life of a zygote that it will not then develop into a human being?

It really seems a stretch with our current medical knowledge that such is not a self-evident truth: Early embryo develops into fetus, fetus developes into infant, infant into child, child to adult. Take the life along any stage of this development and you’ve deprived a human adult of their life.

Rationalism at it’s best, here, folks.

The argument doesn’t hold, since today or very soon I will be able to substitute “cell from a random adult tissue sample” for “zygote” in your statement above and it will still be true.

Regardless of what anyone might think of the ultimate wisdom or morality of human cloning, it renders the “potential human being” argument moot from the standpoint of pure rationalism, since soon any ol’ cell will do.

Not to mention the older chestnut that ovum is the stage of development immediately prior to zygote, and yet menstruation is not murder.

(Yes, there are theological justifications for using conception as the marker, but my point is that this is revealed religious truth, not self-evident truth of the natural moral law.)

 

[DavidHume]

In fact that presents an interesting thought experiment.

Suppose a politically powerful sect believed that the ovum alone carried a soul and deserved protection. What if they were to lobby for mandatory use of the variety of birth control pills that reduce the number of menstrual periods, in order to easily reduce the number of needless deaths?

 

[Newbie2]

The argument doesn’t hold, since today or very soon I will be able to substitute “cell from a random adult tissue sample” for “zygote” in your statement above and it will still be true.

Regardless of what anyone might think of the ultimate wisdom or morality of human cloning, it renders the “potential human being” argument moot from the standpoint of pure rationalism, since soon any ol’ cell will do.

Not to mention the older chestnut that ovum is the stage of development immediately prior to zygote, and yet menstruation is not murder.

(Yes, there are theological justifications for using conception as the marker, but my point is that this is revealed religious truth, not self-evident truth of the natural moral law.)

Red herring. An unfertilized ovum will never develop into a human being. The premise begins at the fertilized ovum, not before, hence the ridiculous argument about menstration causing “murder” is a non sequitur.

We can have the cloning discussion when it’s been proven that cloning a human being can be cloned. Until then, it’s merely speculation. However, naturally speaking, “random tissue” is not meant to be a “potential human being”. Therefore, one can rationalize that the argument indeed does hold.

Sorry, but conception as a marker is indeed self-evident for thinking people.

In fact that presents an interesting thought experiment.

Suppose a politically powerful sect believed that the ovum alone carried a soul and deserved protection. What if they were to lobby for mandatory use of the variety of birth control pills that reduce the number of menstrual periods, in order to easily reduce the number of needless deaths?

Again, a non sequitur. By using birth control, they would be preventing the ovulation, fertilization and incarnation of those souls. A very contradictory theology, methinks.

But an interesting premise. In theory, then…say a bad guy were to murder a 20 year old woman. Would the bad guy then be responsible for the deaths of the 20K or 40K potential ova that that woman might generate in her ovaries? Sounds like a good science fiction story.

 

[DavidHume]

Red herring. An unfertilized ovum will never develop into a human being.

I can assure you that I came from an unfertilized ovum, so this statement is prima facie false.

However, naturally speaking, “random tissue” is not meant to be a “potential human being”. Therefore, one can rationalize that the argument indeed does hold.

“Meant” by whom? I have no problem with you holding these beliefs due to revealed truths. I do take issue with the rhetoric of calling anyone who has not been revealed these truths “evil” and “murderers.”

 

[Toughguy]

DavidHume;5230283]

I can assure you that I came from an unfertilized ovum, so this statement is prima facie false.

How? Were you conceived immaculately? Were you cloned?

 

[elts1956]

I assume you’re a vegetarian then?

The position of most pro-abortion-rights people is that destroying an embryo or fetus in early development is not the same as killing a human being, just as killing an animal to eat is not the same as killing a human being. That’s why Roe v. Wade bothered to mention viability, and why many states already ban or heavily restrict abortions past viability.

It is only through divine revelation and Church teachings that Catholics and other Christians know that God wants a zygote treated exactly the same as an infant. There is no self-evident natural reason for believing this – without accepting this religious dogma, viability is another alternative boundary accepted by many people.

You might get a little more traction with the other side if you didn’t characterize them all as evil willful murderers – just a friendly suggestion.

Where did I call them evil willful murderers? That is your interpretation of the fifth commandment. If, “Thou shall not kill” is only through divine revelation how is it any humans have survived since hu/mans first appeared on Earth. Wouldn’t they have gradually killed all their young as inconveniences?

 

[elts1956]

That is what he said, but we don’t know whether it would have been true. What we do know is that President Obama was enthusiastically recieved by Notre Dame students at their graduation.

And to think NDU was once the flagship of Catholic Culture.

 

[DavidHume]

Where did I call them evil willful murderers?

My complaint is general – you can visit the first few pages of the thread. I did not mean to single you out.