How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[StudentMI]

I don’t see how a conscience could embrace killing up to the moment of birth and neglecting an unwanted newborn so it dies.

I am not embracing that. I will not attempt to excuse the abortion policies of Biden or the Green Party. But for proportionate reasons, I am voting third party. I want abortion made illegal as I’ve pretty much said already in this thread.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But for proportionate reasons,

What present political issue do you find equal in gravity to killing a million children per year, some after their birth?

 

[StudentMI]

What present political issue do you find equal in gravity to killing a million children per year, some after their birth?

Several. Breaking down federal power (which would be a good thing for the pro-life movement), the elimination of war and supporting dictatorial regimes the world over, economic justice.

We’re not going to eliminate abortion in this country without a strong fight and that must be waged at the local level. The federal is already lost. Paramount must be conversion of hearts and, perhaps more importantly, evangelization.

 

[Bonifatius]

maybe in the past when republicans casted catholics out of their party and some tried to surpress catholicism but not today where the democratics of america are to put it lightly - not very close to church teaching

 

[Ridgerunner]

Wrong in every respect, including that Democrat counsel that nothing can be done to prevent abortion until “hearts and minds” are changed. To what end? Without political capability hearts and minds can change nothing.

 

[StudentMI]

Wrong in every respect…

Okay. That’s you’re opinion. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

Without political capability hearts and minds can change nothing.

I would point to the early Christians who without political influence garnered convert after convert.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s you’re opinion.

Some is objective fact, like whether its “lost” on the federal level. One SC justice would do it.

I would point to the early Christians who without political influence garnered convert after convert.

You forget the intervention of Constantine who made Christianity the state religion.

 

[Annie]

And of course this is biology, so timing depends on individuals. But 30 hours is probably a good estimate.

24 to 30 hours… experts disagree.

Plus, this is the point at which the single cell begins to divide, not the point at which it becomes diploid.

And the moment at which the cell becomes diploid is not the beginning of the process. The sperm entering the egg is.

At which step do you draw a line and say “OK, at this step we have conception.”

Choosing the moment at which the chromosomes if the egg and sperm complete their uniting is as arbitrary as picking the moment of birth, or some other arbitrary moment in the process.

When does the life process begin? Clearly when the sperm enters the egg and everything starts happening.

And we haven’t even talked about the implantation of the new cells on the uterus wall

Used to be pregnancy began at conception. When pro-life people started pointing out that the Pill’s secondary mechanism was to prevent implantation, suddenly, voilá!, implantation became the new time pregnancy began.

the fact that up to 80% of the fertilized cells never implant and die.

What is the import of this fact? I think that pretty much everyone is aware of the difference between a natural death and a homicide.

All these ideas are just semantic games some people (not necessarily you) play to justify keeping abortion legal. There is no other use for the time and energy spent on splitting hairs to the level of quarks.

Thus many Catholic hospitals have given “morning after” pills–although this has been very contentious.

Contentious only because our technology is imperfect. The reality is that there is giving the morning-after pill when it is known the victim is not yet pregnant in order to delay ovulation so that a pregnancy *will not occur is morally sanctioned.

All I’m trying to do here is simply point out that it’s complicated, with multiple steps over a fairly long period of time.

There is one process, which begins at the entry of the sperm into the egg.

Each and every one of us went through this process at the beginning of our lives.

None of which was known in 1869.

So, are you arguing that abortion should be allowed in the period between the entry of the sperm into the egg and 25 to 30 hours later?

 

[Annie]

Because this opened up the whole issue–at what point was Mary sinless?

How could the declaration that Mary was conceived without sin open up the question?

And you expect me to believe that people were arguing about when conception occurred back in 1854 or 1869?

This entire discussion is like saying there are no frogs because we cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact second at which a tadpole becomes a frog.

that sure doesn’t sound like it’s simultaneous,

Why does this matter to this discussion?

it poses an issue for those who take Genesis literally.

We are Catholic and do not take all parts of the Bible literally.

 

[JimG]

The more we learn about human embryology, the less excuse we have for opting to kill new human beings just because they are not fully developed. Toddlers and teenagers are not fully developed. We all had our own personal beginning in the same way. It began with the union of sperm and ovum. And then the new human being began to direct its development.

 

[JimG]

As for the answer to the original question, it is a puzzle and a quandary. The Democratic Party has locked onto abortion as if it were the only human right ever, to be maitained at all costs, even the cost in human lives.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Well if your getting tired of it, you could always just switch parties jk lol

 

[MagdalenaRita]

We are Catholic and do not take all parts of the Bible literally.

nicholasG:

Only the parts that are convenient.

The Catholic church believes every word of Holy Scripture. Catholics do take the Bible literally. The Catechism states the literal sense of Scripture is what all the other senses of Scripture are based on.

CCC 115 - 116:
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation : "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.

*(Catholic church alone given the authority for sound interpretation)

 

[pnewton]

While the issues you mentioned are indeed very important and the Church does make them a priority, I don’t know about you but I place the protection of innocent, defenseless babies facing certain slaughter and death over those issues.

I do. But I as you know, that issue is not on the ballot. We have compromised, politically, with mortal sin in regards to divorce and remarriage in this country because pretty much every Catholic understands that in a pluralistic society, we will not regulate adultery by force of law, like it was done in the time of Jesus. Yet it is a black and white mortal sin. All I am saying is that the day may come, and may be here, where the only way to challenge abortion is in dialogue, and there may not be a legal way out of abortion in western society.

I do not want anyone to throw in the towel, but in my own judgment, the most effective way to change the law on abortion is to first change the culture, and without a significant change, and time, we will not see abortion made illegal. We may never see it. I do not want to see more children die because we keep trying the same unsuccessful strategies. That is why I say a black and white issue may not have a black and white answer.

Speaking of repeating the same behavior expecting different results, I see a parallel in Catholic, pro-life Democrats who stay in the party and refuse to give it completely to abortion, even if the majority are pro-abortion, and those who keep voting the same way for Republicans thinking Roe v. Wade will be overturned by just one more term. I see the parallel, and I have to respect those who fight abortion each on their own battlefield. I sure hate seeing people who are pro-life take pot shots at each other for not thinking like they do. Jesus prayed that we all be one, not one political party.

 

[pnewton]

Too bad. This only helps the abortion supporters.

Not mathematically correct.

There are those not as willing to compromise on abortion issues, even in the Republican Party. That is not me, as I understand that political compromise is not the same as compromise with evil. But neither you or I, or anyone else, has not business judging, shaming, bullying people for following the teaching of the Church.

The Church demands everyone vote their well-formed conscience, not yours, not mine, not their priest’s.

 

[Randolph]

I do not want anyone to throw in the towel, but in my own judgment, the most effective way to change the law on abortion is to first change the culture, and without a significant change, and time, we will not see abortion made illegal. We may never see it. I do not want to see more children die because we keep trying the same unsuccessful strategies. That is why I say a black and white issue may not have a black and white answer.

Specifically, what change in culture are you proposing? And is it realistic given the current political environment?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Without political capability hearts and minds can change nothing.

That is clearly not true. If hearts and minds are changed, more women will not want abortions, and so fewer abortions will be performed.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You forget the intervention of Constantine who made Christianity the state religion.

The fastest growth of Christianity, proportion-wise, was before the Edict of Milan.

 

[JSRG]

You forget the intervention of Constantine who made Christianity the state religion.

Constantine never made Christianity the state religion; he simply legalized it and forbade further persecution against Christians. Christianity becoming the religion of the Roman Empire occurred more than 40 years after his death in the Edict of Thessalonica.

 

[Riman643]

In my opinion you can’t. The platform specifically states that you must be for abortion (genocide of the pre-born).