Gabrielle Giffords Endorses Clinton

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lily_Bernans
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
7_Sorrows said:
that is the problem. nobody wants to see what the baby goes through. if more people witnessed what happens during an abortion, they would not be as willing to support it. by not seeing what happens you are really in denial and it is easier to say women should be given a choice.
why should only Catholic school kids see this?
Click to expand...
Why am I in denial? I don’t support abortion. I hate abortion or violence of any kind.

All kids should see it at the proper age, but public schools would never allow it.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Why am I in denial? I don’t support abortion. I hate abortion or violence of any kind.

All kids should see it at the proper age, but public schools would never allow it.
Click to expand...
meaning those who support abortion and refuse to see it are in denial.
I feel even if you oppose abortion you should watch in order to make a case against abortion.
 
I_trust said:
Please Lily, tell us what type of degree in Catholic Theology you have earned.
Click to expand...
I’m about one year away from my PhD in Theology, and I’m an associate professor of Christology and New Testament Studies.

However, like others, I don’t believe advanced degrees count for much here; I believe right conduct and the quality of posts does.

And you used the right word - I have EARNED them. 😉
 
7_Sorrows said:
meaning those who support abortion and refuse to see it are in denial.
I feel even if you oppose abortion you should watch in order to make a case against abortion.
Click to expand...
I don’t support abortion, and I’ve seen similar videos when I went to high school. I don’t need to see more of them. The first one I saw made me anti-abortion in every case, even if the mother’s life is in danger.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The doctrine taught by the magesterium on the evil of abortion is clear. The doctrine on voting for someone who opposes outlawing abortion is less clear. There is no binding Church teaching on voting in such cases.
Click to expand...
You are right. Just as a doctor who gives a patient a dose of painkillers he knows will kill the patient is not at fault if the intention is to stop the pain, the person who votes for someone who supports abortion is not culpable unless he or she does so intending to increase abortions. I don’t intend to aid in abortions, and I don’t think either Clinton or Sanders will cause abortions to increase.

Moral Theology 101.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
You are right. Just as a doctor who gives a patient a dose of painkillers he knows will kill the patient is not at fault if the intention is to stop the pain, the person who votes for someone who supports abortion is not culpable unless he or she does so intending to increase abortions. I don’t intend to aid in abortions, and I don’t think either Clinton or Sanders will cause abortions to increase.

Moral Theology 101.
Click to expand...
will they cause them to decrease?
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I’m about one year away from my PhD in Theology, and I’m an associate professor of Christology and New Testament Studies.

However, like others, I don’t believe advanced degrees count for much here; I believe right conduct and the quality of posts does.

And you used the right word - I have EARNED them. 😉
Click to expand...
Congratulations Lily Berman! That is marvelous news. It takes a lot of work and perseverance to push through a dissertation. It took me almost a decade and there were times I wondered if I could do it. But in the end, it feels wonderful.

And you’re right, advanced degrees here aren’t all that important, but every once in awhile I read something and think, ‘Where in the world did you hear that?’ In the end, it’s the exchange and learning from each other - regardless of political leanings.
 
7_Sorrows said:
will they cause them to decrease?
Click to expand...
I wish I knew, 7 Sorrows, but I’m not a fortune teller.

What I think is that the number will remain the same over the next four years no matter who is elected president, but that is only what I think. I do not know. No one does but God.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
You are right. Just as a doctor who gives a patient a dose of painkillers he knows will kill the patient is not at fault if the intention is to stop the pain, the person who votes for someone who supports abortion is not culpable unless he or she does so intending to increase abortions. I don’t intend to aid in abortions, and I don’t think either Clinton or Sanders will cause abortions to increase.

Moral Theology 101.
Click to expand...
First of all, your logic is faulty. A doctor who gives a patient a dose of painkillers **that he knows will kill the patient **IS at fault. If he knows it will kill the patient, he would not be giving it to the patient.

The person who votes for someone who supports abortion IS culpable by the mere fact that they could have voted for someone who is NOT in favor of abortions. It has nothing to do with whether the voter is intending to increase abortions. This is the same faulty logic as saying that one is “personally opposed to abortion but thinks people should be able to get one if they want to.”

That is like saying "I am personally opposed to murder, but you should be allowed to commit murder if you want to. "

Logic and Philosophy 101.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Congratulations Lily Berman! That is marvelous news. It takes a lot of work and perseverance to push through a dissertation. It took me almost a decade and there were times I wondered if I could do it. But in the end, it feels wonderful.

And you’re right, advanced degrees here aren’t all that important, but every once in awhile I read something and think, ‘Where in the world did you hear that?’ In the end, it’s the exchange and learning from each other - regardless of political leanings.
Click to expand...
Thank you, and congratulations to you as well! You did all the work, too! 🙂 I don’t know the thrill of actually having my PhD yet like you do, but I do know the thrill I felt when I got my Master’s, and when I was hired at college to teach. Wonderful!

I’m with you, there are times when I feel like chucking my paper, but I set it aside for awhile, like today, and I’m ready to go again.

And I agree about the exchange of knowledge here. All of us have valuable things to contribute, and on most things, my mind is not set in stone because I don’t have all the answers, not by a long shot.

Thank you again for your kindness, and again, congrats to you, too! 👍
 
7_Sorrows said:
will they cause them to decrease?
Click to expand...
Whether Lily does or does not think Sanders or Clinton will decrease abortions is beside the point. And that point was made by pianistclare, and perhaps you share it too. And that is that binding Catholic doctrine prohibits under pain of mortal sin any Catholic from voting for a pro-choice candidate. This is quite different from arguing to advance one’s one prudential judgement on who we should vote for. The question at hand is whether Catholic teaching takes this voting decision out of the hands of prudential judgement. Projections of what will happen if so-and-so is elected are clearly not a matter of Church teaching. It is a matter over which people of good faith may disagree. Lily may think abortions will decrease under Sanders. You may think otherwise. Both of you are entitled to your opinion. Neither opinion is immoral.
 
Irishmom2 said:
First of all, your logic is faulty. A doctor who gives a patient a dose of painkillers **that he knows will kill the patient **IS at fault. If he knows it will kill the patient, he would not be giving it to the patient.

The person who votes for someone who supports abortion IS culpable by the mere fact that they could have voted for someone who is NOT in favor of abortions. It has nothing to do with whether the voter is intending to increase abortions. This is the same faulty logic as saying that one is “personally opposed to abortion but thinks people should be able to get one if they want to.”

That is like saying "I am personally opposed to murder, but you should be allowed to commit murder if you want to. "

Logic and Philosophy 101.
Click to expand...
Well, I took those examples straight from a textbook on Catholic Bioethics, so you can take it up with the following authors:

Janet E. Smith, PhD, Michael McGivney Chair of Life Ethics
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
Detroit, MI

…and…

Christopher Kaczor, PhD, University of Notre Dame (Fulbright scholar at University of Cologne in Germany)
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Loyola Marymount College
Los Angeles, CA

Let us know what they said, okay? And if they’re going to correct their textbook!
 
Irishmom2 said:
First of all, your logic is faulty. A doctor who gives a patient a dose of painkillers **that he knows will kill the patient **IS at fault. If he knows it will kill the patient, he would not be giving it to the patient.
Click to expand...
A more relevant analogy would be a doctor who suspects the painkillers might have a certain probability of killing the patient. Voting for a pro-choice candidate is not “certain” to cause anyone to get an abortion. You can argue probabilities, but not certainties on the consequences of someone being elected.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
A more relevant analogy would be a doctor who suspects the painkillers might have a certain probability of killing the patient. Voting for a pro-choice candidate is not “certain” to cause anyone to get an abortion. You can argue probabilities, but not certainties on the consequences of someone being elected.
Click to expand...
Well, it was not my analogy. I was just pointing out it’s flaw.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top