As I’ve said elsewhere, I think you’re misunderstanding the infallible nature of the Church’s teaching on abortion. Debates about when the soul enters the body and like matters have occurred, yes, but the Church has decided.
We will not change anything by portraying prolife and prochoice as mutually exclusive, binary options.
This is what I always think about certain Catholics I know of…they are there to change “the platform”…
Says who that they have an inherent right to “decide”? “Decide” to kill someone?Shakuhachi:
We will not change anything by portraying prolife and prochoice as mutually exclusive, binary options.
Most people in the USA are both prolife and prochoice, as your graph points out. The question “Are you more pro-life or pro-choice?” Comes from a stance of we are all a mix of both positions. The actual graph, based on answers to that question, seems to show the two choices as antithetical.
Change will only come by acknowledging that pregnant women have an inherent right to decide, and that no one can take that away from them. That has to be weighed against the inherent right of the child to be alive. As long as the discussion treats those choices as mutually exclusive there will be no change in public thinking.
Huh!StudentMI:
Of course not. So I’m going to help you find the truth! Two questions:
I eagerly await your (or anyone’s!) answers.
- The Church teaches that a person with a soul is created at the moment of conception. The DNA from the egg combines with the DNA from the sperm to form a new individual. When does this happen?
- In 1867 the Church changed its teaching of 1800+ years and said that all abortions = murder. What else was happening (particularly in the Church) that might have influenced this decision?
No, I’m asking exactly what I wrote: When does the DNA from the egg and sperm combine to form an individual with new DNA? This is a scientific question, not a theological one.
Sorry, I made a mistake in the year–1869. I’ve read the article you reference multiple times. I have NEVER said (or written!) that “abortion was not forbidden until…” or that “Pope Pius IX condemned abortion for the very first time.” The article is 100% right–if anyone thinks that, it’s a misconception. But notice that the article is cleverly worded to avoid the real issue.
Your donation to the American Cancer Society can save a single life. There is some amount that needs to be donated to save a life that previously wouldn’t be saved, and if your donation puts it up to that amount, it would therefore save a life. And, of course, even if it isn’t enough to save a life, it can still accomplish a number of other things.JSRG:
Of course it won’t, any more than my donation to the American Cancer Society will save a single life. That’s not the point. It’s doing what one can.
Hate is not a feeling. It’s how one acts toward the other, regardless of feelings.
It means something to the soul of the voter. One can’t blame the election system for one’s failure to oppose evil. That’s personal evil.
The exceptions the president believes in for abortion are not accepted by any bishop. Of course one can vote for Trump if one would believe he is the most elect-able candidate that might impact abortion the most. But don’t mistake this for the whole non-negotiable argument, or that he is in line with the bishops on abortion.
I base my judgement in this matter on the historical evidence during the last few administrations, as well as what case law allows, and does not allow. One matter is practical, the other legal.
No one is conducting abortions inside a voting booth. Sure, the oversimplification of any issue would not allow for judgement, but this is not a simple issue. To paraphrase Lincoln, if I could end abortion without changing a single law, I would. On the other hand if I could make abortion magically illegal without saving one child, I would choose the earlier magic wish. There are two issues, adjusting the law, and saving children. How the two relate is of course a matter of judgement.
Racism and hating your neighbor is the prime ideology behind Planned parenthood and the whole abortion agenda, which is why many abortion clinics are strategically placed in poor neighborhoods.
I agree. Which is exactly why I believe people should refuse to vote for either Biden or Trump.JSRG:
It means something to the soul of the voter. One can’t blame the election system for one’s failure to oppose evil. That’s personal evil.
Again, hang on a minute. I have never disagreed with or criticized the teaching of the Church on abortion. Please go back and read my posts–that’s NOT what I have been saying!
I don’t. But neither has he said “oh, I’ll only appoint justices who allow abortion in the case of rape or incest”. Nor has he told the Little Sisters that they have to provide abortifacients to employees who claim rape or incest.
Actually it is. Life and death are binary choices. One can choose life for another or death. There’s nothing in between. At present, the Dem party chooses death, as do those who support them.
No it isn’t, because the choice will never be presented to you. It’s like posing a choice between peanut butter and ambrosia served by Ganymede.
If, indeed, you are prolife, failing to vote at all is exactly supporting Biden and abortion. Exactly. If you are not prolife, then it’s better that you throw away your vote.