Have Fundamentalists distorted the Pro-Life Movement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
👍 I agree. I don’t support attacks on clinics but I can sympathize with their intent. To blame them for the failure of the pro-life movement, and put all that blame on “fundamentalists” is simply absurd. Truth be told, the pro-life movement wouldn’t exist on nearly the level that it does if there were not evangelicals to take up the cause…Way to throw your pro-life brethren under the bus Manny.
Read the my response to Lil-Cat. It explains everything in context.
 
The intend to is convince Fundamentalist who adhere to using violence against abortion clinics not to condone any sort of violence. Second, not all Christian Fundamentalist believe in killing abortionists. This thread is specifically addressed to individual Fundamentalist who strongly believe that killing abortion doctors is justified in order to save an unborn infant.
…but like you said, this massage is not just for Fundamentalists, but for all Christians, and others have pointed out that both Fundamentalists and Catholics have engaged in such attacks (and likewise that they are the exception rather than the rule in their respective groups). Hence your tone comes across as less interested in the abortion issue in particular than in pointing out what bad people Fundamentalists are.
 
Woah, me a pacifist. An American Soldier, who defend the United States of American against all enemies foreign and domestic.

I read those paras from the Catechism but the death penalty should rarely be used.
So which is it? Do you have a “moral objection” to the death penalty in principle, that is that it is intrinsically wrong or is it morally justified and should be used “rarely”? Make up your mind man.
Now. The Catechism was written in the mid 1990s. Yet, John Paul held a more traditional opposition to the death penalty. Does it make him any different than me?
It depends. JPII did not have a moral objection to the death penalty in principle (as you said before) but rather its use amonst wealthy western nations.
 
…but like you said, this massage is not just for Fundamentalists, but for all Christians, and others have pointed out that both Fundamentalists and Catholics have engaged in such attacks (and likewise that they are the exception rather than the rule in their respective groups). Hence your tone comes across as less interested in the abortion issue in particular than in pointing out what bad people Fundamentalists are.
The actions of those who committed such crimes put a stain in all Christians who adhere to Pro-Life Agenda. I am pretty certain that there are some of us here who believe it would justified to kill abortion doctors. These views needs to change and a more civil form of combating the sins of abortions should be used.
 
Read the my response to Lil-Cat. It explains everything in context.
No, it really doesn’t.

I asked you specifically why you are bringing this up in 2008, when (by your own admission) this happened in the 1990’s. When was the last time you heard of a fundamentalist bombing an abortion center? Please cite a link if you would be so kind. Thanks!
 
The actions of those who committed such crimes put a stain in all Christians who adhere to Pro-Life Agenda. I am pretty certain that there are some of us here who believe it would justified to kill abortion doctors. These views needs to change and a more civil form of combating the sins of abortions should be used.
Agreed, with the caveat that for the last 10 years such unacceptable means of combating abortion have in fact been extremely rare and furthermore trending downward (hence the comments: “why bring this up now?”). And much better stated when you leave your sectarian biases out of the picture.
 
So which is it? Do you have a “moral objection” to the death penalty in principle, that is that it is intrinsically wrong or is it morally justified and should be used “rarely”? Make up your mind man.
Personally, I believe in a total abolishment of the death penalty and prefer a life sentences. The same views that John Paul II stated in his speeches and writings.

Second, just as the Catechism stated, death penalty would be acceptible in order to form a good and civil order within society, just as para 2267 and 2266 states.
It depends. JPII did not have a moral objection to the death penalty in principle (as you said before) but rather its use amonst wealthy western nations.
That is exactly what I am oppose against same as JPII.
 
Show me the proof that there were **many ** violent acts against abortion clinics and **many **people involved.

Any violent action against abortion clinics or doctors is wrong. However, you need to be accurate in your statements. And, I do not believe you are being accurate when you state many people were involved in “terrorist acts” agains abortion.
To read about some of them… go to these links:

feminist.org/rrights/violence.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#Incidents_in_the_United_States

feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/04/27/the-terrorism-that-dare-not-speak-its-name/

religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

commondreams.org/views02/0213-08.htm

villagevoice.com/1998-11-10/news/the-terrorist-campaign-against-abortion/

Now it can be said that some of the data in these links is somewhat old…the fact is that violence is still going on. I think that there are “political reasons” that less is heard about what is happening…

But the bottom line is: Two wrongs do not make a right. To sink to their level is a mistake. Until such time as a Constitutional referendum is passed or an amendment to the Constitution is made into law… people have rights. We do not have to agree with what they do, but if it is within their rights, they have the protection of the law on their side. To violate their rights… is illegal. Its that simple.
 
Agreed, with the caveat that for the last 10 years such unacceptable means of combating abortion have in fact been extremely rare and furthermore trending downward (hence the comments: “why bring this up now?”). And much better stated when you leave your sectarian biases out of the picture.
I am not a sectarian and this needs to be addressed. Especially now that we have a Pro-Choice President Elect. I have no doubt in my mind that some Extremist will inflict harm on Obama because of his position as the President of the United States. If he gets assassinated (God forbid) and the killer is linked to a Extremist Christian Group. The Christians of the United States will be discriminated like the day it was in Nero, when the Christians were accused of setting Rome on fire. This result in the persecution of Christians.

I doubt we will have it bad as they do, but the general view of the people of Christians will be distorted and they will mock us because someone who believes that “I kill the abortion Supporter cause the Bible or God told me too” (using their own PRIVATE INTEPRETATION of the Bible).
 
Man you are all over the map. So you are saying that you have no moral objection to the death penalty in priciple? Right?
 
Personally, I believe in a total abolishment of the death penalty and prefer a life sentences. The same views that John Paul II stated in his speeches and writings.

Second, just as the Catechism stated, death penalty would be acceptible in order to form a good and civil order within society, just as para 2267 and 2266 states.

That is exactly what I am oppose against same as JPII.
Okay fine. I just thought it was weird when you said that we don’t have a right to take life when the RCC upholds that as a right and duty. I suppose that your objection to the clinic attacks is more pragmatic than moral.
 
Okay fine. I just thought it was weird when you said that we don’t have a right to take life when the RCC upholds that as a right and duty. I suppose that your objection to the clinic attacks is more pragmatic than moral.
Attacking clinics does harm to the Pro-Life Movement than benefiting from it.

The Catholic only affirms that death comes natural means. The Church condemns intentionally murder or killing. The right to self-defense which result in the death of the thief according to the Catholic Church is not murder because it is not intentional.
 
Attacking clinics does harm to the Pro-Life Movement than benefiting from it.
Pragmatism. Got it.
The Catholic only affirms that death comes natural means. The Church condemns intentionally murder or killing. The right to self-defense which result in the death of the thief according to the Catholic Church is not murder because it is not intentional.
There you go again. The Catholic Church affirms the RIGHT of the state to kill criminals regardless of what you say.
 
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

What exactly don’t you understand about that?
 
There you go again. The Catholic Church affirms the RIGHT of the state to kill criminals regardless of what you say.
and Pope John Paul II condemns it.
 
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

What exactly don’t you understand about that?
The para state, “traditionally,” however. Pope John Paul II believes in a total abolishment of the death penalty. However, this is not the issue of the death penalty. That belongs in another thread.
 
No he didn’t. You know that he approved of the very same catechism that affirmed the right of the state to execute criminals don’t you?
Read this document. These are statements made by JPII

Source:

usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/holyfather.shtml

The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary. (Pope John Paul II, St. Louis, MO, January 1999) Punishment cannot be reduced to mere retribution, much less take the form of social retaliation or a sort of institutional vengeance. Punishment and imprisonment have meaning if they serve the rehabilitation of the individual by offering those who have made a mistake an opportunity to reflect and to change their lives in order to be fully reintegrated into society. (Pope John Paul II, Jubilee Homily to Prisoners, Rome, July 2002)

The Holy Father calls recourse to the death penalty “unnecessary” and painfully reminds us that our “model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the Gospel message.” (Pope John Paul II, World Day of the Sick, Washington, DC, February 2003)

May the proclamation of Christmas be a source of encouragement to all those who work to bring relief to the tormented situation in the Middle East by respecting international commitments. May Christmas help to strengthen and renew, throughout the world, the consensus concerning the need for urgent and adequate measures to halt the production and sale of arms, to defend human life, to end the death penalty, to free children and adolescents from all forms of exploitation, to restrain the bloodied hand of those responsible for genocide and crimes of war, to give environmental issues, especially after the recent natural catastrophes, the indispensable attention which they deserve for the protection of creation and of human dignity! (Pope John Paul II, Christmas Day Message, 1998)

Nowadays, in America as elsewhere in the world, a model of society appears to be emerging in which the powerful predominate, setting aside and even eliminating the powerless: I am thinking here of unborn children, helpless victims of abortion; the elderly and incurably ill, subjected at times to euthanasia; and the many other people relegated to the margins of society by consumerism and materialism. Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty when other “bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons. Today, given the means at the State’s disposal to deal with crime and control those who commit it, without abandoning all hope of their redemption, the cases where it is absolutely necessary to do away with an offender ‘are now very rare, even non-existent practically’”. (Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America January 1999)

The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated.

It is clear that for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent. (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995)
 
The para state, “traditionally,” however. Pope John Paul II believes in a total abolishment of the death penalty. However, this is not the issue of the death penalty. That belongs in another thread.
I wasn’t aware that the catholic church can just throw traditional moral teaching into outer darkness. So much for the immovable moral rock of Peter. Perhaps the traditional teaching on abortion will be next. Thanks for making that clear
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top