How Much Time Should She Serve?

[SoCalRC]

You see discsrimination-I see dead babies-a disporportinate number who are Black , BTW. Much evil is done and/or supported under the guise of "Social Justice.

Actually, you seem to see much more. You don’t just see dead babies, but appear to have a whole belief system on the one, ‘true’ way to address the problem. Further, you seem to perceive some specific Christian teachings as a direct threat to that plan, a point of view I simply do not understand.

Again, I see something like abortion rates soaring among military families. I feel partially responsible, because the families are incurring additional stresses because of services rendered for the common good. So I push for things like better family benefits and support services. My goal is to reduce abortions but, further, I see social justice for men and woman in service as another important calling of my faith. If you don’t, fine.

As far as “social justice” covering evil acts, the same could easily be argued about the name “Christianity”. But what possible direction could you expect such an argument to lead? Are you saying that Jesus was evil because he chose to speak on social justice but not abortion?

You are welcome to scream at me, but at the end of the day I am still Roman Catholic. That means that Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and the Magesterium all point to a strong obligation to social justice. The Church does not just speak on one issue. Just look at the issues the Pope chose to raise last Easter Sunday. You can feel this is wrong, but then your argument is really with the Church, not me.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, there is evidence of social change preceding the legal changes. In fact, that was the opinion of many self described ‘moderates’ - better to let things continue to change naturally than create a backlash with a legislative solution.

I was there – from start to finish. Racial prejudice wasn’t going to die a “natural death.”

And there was undeniably some backlash, look at how it changed the fortunes of the GOP.

Is this more of “If you’re from the south, you’re a racist” bigotry?

Actually, I have. On the other hand, I have never lusted after my sister, so perhaps a more compelling argument would be that I can never truly understand the south because I am cursed with a family tree that actually forks.

So this** is** more of “If you’re from the south, you’re a racist” bigotry.

But why perpetuate regional and ethnic sneers?

You’ll have to ask some one who does perpetuate regional and ethnic sneers. To see one, look in the mirror.

OK, now that I have recycled uncredited redneck humor, I can really concede.

There’s a big difference between “redneck humor” and that sort of bigotry.

 

[estesbob]

Actually, you seem to see much more. You don’t just see dead babies, but appear to have a whole belief system on the one, ‘true’ way to address the problem. Further, you seem to perceive some specific Christian teachings as a direct threat to that plan, a point of view I simply do not understand.

.

Which is what you do. The "true way" based upon upon your own personal definition of what social justice is. And of course to bolster your argument you tell us that your view is the Church’s view. You even presume to tell us that Jesus supports your view of social justice The sad part is you are perfectly willing to accept the evil of abortion until the country adopts your “true way.”

Abortion is an abject evil that must be ended by any nonviolent means necessary. All the pontificating about social justice and claiming to know what the church believes will not wash away the blood of 50 million dead children

 

[SoCalRC]

So this** is** more of “If you’re from the south, you’re a racist” bigotry.

No, it is a simple historical fact. Southern Democrats became Southern Republicans, primarily because of civil rights. It doesn’t make it right or wrong, it just is. To this day, race can be used to motivate political bases. Right or wrong, it seems insane to argue that it does not exist.

There’s a big difference between “redneck humor” and that sort of bigotry.

It is stolen directly from Jeff Foxworthy. I saw him say it to a large hall of southern folks who howled with laughter. Funny, you throw out some sort of regional stereotype, stick on an emoticon, and consider it suitable good humor. I quote a southern humorist, and you scream about bigotry…

OK - last word is yours…

 

[estesbob]

No, it is a simple historical fact. Southern Democrats became Southern Republicans, primarily because of civil rights. It doesn’t make it right or wrong, it just is. To this day, race can be used to motivate political bases. Right or wrong, it seems insane to argue that it does not exist.

It …

Yes race can be used to motivate political bases. The fact that the Democrats have duped 95% of blacks to vote for them is a strong indication of this.

 

[SoCalRC]

Which is what you do.

How? I noted we are called to social justice directly by our Savior. I have not said how we should answer that call.

I also noted that there appears to be a statistical link between social injustice and higher rates of abortion. I have not said that precludes any other means of addressing abortion.

You SAY you want to stop abortion by any non violent means, but when I suggest that we may have success in lowering abortions by directly addressing some of the needs woman actually having abortions say are driving their decisions, you insist on placing me into some stupid stereotype and then argue that I am some how promoting abortions.

I’m sorry, I’m Catholic, I can’t ‘stop abortion’ by any means. For example, abortions in the US have dropped steadily since the beginning of the 90s. Most experts attribute this to contraception availability and use. I can’t tell people to start using contraception, it is against my faith. I have to use means which are licit to my faith.

Some Catholics want to look to secular law, fine, look to secular law, but our greatest triumph there has turned out to be purely symbolic. Me, I’m now looking to God. I believe that prayer and trying to be a good follower of Christ helps lead to a world with fewer abortions.

If you want to attack that, fine, attack that. But if you just want to argue with a stereotype, go on talk radio.

 

[estesbob]

How? I noted we are called to social justice directly by our Savior. I have not said how we should answer that call.

I also noted that there appears to be a statistical link between social injustice and higher rates of abortion. I have not said that precludes any other means of addressing abortion.

You SAY you want to stop abortion by any non violent means, but when I suggest that we may have success in lowering abortions by directly addressing some of the needs woman actually having abortions say are driving their decisions, you insist on placing me into some stupid stereotype and then argue that I am some how promoting abortions.

I’m sorry, I’m Catholic, I can’t ‘stop abortion’ by any means. For example, abortions in the US have dropped steadily since the beginning of the 90s. Most experts attribute this to contraception availability and use. I can’t tell people to start using contraception, it is against my faith. I have to use means which are licit to my faith.

Some Catholics want to look to secular law, fine, look to secular law, but our greatest triumph there has turned out to be purely symbolic. Me, I’m now looking to God. I believe that prayer and trying to be a good follower of Christ helps lead to a world with fewer abortions.

If you want to attack that, fine, attack that. But if you just want to argue with a stereotype, go on talk radio.

You are in the master of the stereotype. You dismiss me as a redneck Southernerf and a conservative who should go on talk radio rather than waste your precious time.

Contraception has nothing to do with the reduction in abortions-it’s been readily available since 1968. And since the introduction of widespread contraception abortions ,illegitimacy and child abuse have skyrocketed,

The decrease in abortions in 1990s is because of the new tactics used by those of us involved in the pro-life Ministry. We opened crisis pregnancy centers and started to work unceasingly to elect pro-life politicians. We pushed for parental consent laws and informed consent laws-both of which cut abortions in every state there were passed we are one Supreme Court justice away from having Roe V. Wade overturned. Had George Bush been really getting 1992 Rove V Wade would have been overturned in the Casey decision. We lost by one vote.

Too many Catholics sit on the sidelines claiming that poverty and the lack of social justice forces these women to kill their children. Those of us at work in the ministry know that is not true. Abortion is rampant because we have a culture of death in this country. In 1972 it was made legal for women to kill her child. Abortions immediately increased from under 400,000 year to over one ansd a half million a year. Until we make abortion illegal again there will be no solution.

 

[SoCalRC]

The decrease in abortions in 1990s is because of the new tactics used by those of us involved in the pro-life Ministry. We opened crisis pregnancy centers and started to work unceasingly to elect pro-life politicians. We pushed for parental consent laws and informed consent laws-both of which cut abortions in every state there were passed we are one Supreme Court justice away from having Roe V. Wade overturned. Had George Bush been really getting 1992 Rove V Wade would have been overturned in the Casey decision. We lost by one vote.

Too many Catholics sit on the sidelines claiming that poverty and the lack of social justice forces these women to kill their children. Those of us at work in the ministry know that is not true. Abortion is rampant because we have a culture of death in this country. In 1972 it was made legal for women to kill her child. Abortions immediately increased from under 400,000 year to over one ansd a half million a year. Until we make abortion illegal again there will be no solution.

I almost hate to point this out, but this appear to match what I said, “You don’t just see dead babies, but appear to have a whole belief system on the one, ‘true’ way to address the problem.”

All positive progress is, according to you, the result of specific efforts. Anything else is sitting “on the sidelines”. Which pretty much matches my other statement, “Further, you seem to perceive some specific Christian teachings as a direct threat to that plan, a point of view I simply do not understand.”

If pursuit of social justice is sitting “on the sidelines” for a Catholic, as you say, then, again, you are being disdainful of a core Christian teaching which was given emphasis in Jesus’ earthly ministry. And, no, I simply do not understand that.

But that brings us to the real difference between us. It isn’t abortion. I fully accept the Church’s teaching on abortion. In fact, by many Catholic’s standards I am quite conservative. For example, I have serious misgivings about the application of double effect in ectopic pregnancies, particularly since even secular society calls them abortions - other Catholics, like Vern, openly sneer at such doubts.

The real difference is, well, confidence. I disagree about how best to pursue Church teachings but, if you look carefully, you will find that I never said that other Catholics should not pursue other paths. You, on the other hand, claim to have complete conviction that other efforts are useless.

Without your utter confidence in my own rightousness, I have to look to Rome, the facts as best I can find them, and my concience. That means I have to consider things like a military occupation the Pope now has openly referred to as “evil”, a new policy of arming and assisting some Sunni militia who are, in turn, persecuting hundreds of thousands of fellow Christians, abortion rates going up in some states after a decade of steadily going down, an explosion of abortions in the aftermath of Katrina, Abramof scandal money being seriously tainted by the sex trade and forced abortions in Saipan, and a government that lets poison baby food and lead painted toys attack our small children on a massive scale from China…

I’m not saying all Catholics must consider these things. I’m saying I have to, at least until the Magesterium tells me that I can ignore all teachings but one. If you find this a sinful waste, fine. But I’m not you, I have no certainty, so I have to try to be the Tax Collector and spend a lot of time worrying about being the Pharisee.

 

[blessedtoo]

an explosion of abortions in the aftermath of Katrina,

Do you have a source for this?

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, it is a simple historical fact. Southern Democrats became Southern Republicans, primarily because of civil rights. It doesn’t make it right or wrong, it just is. To this day, race can be used to motivate political bases. Right or wrong, it seems insane to argue that it does not exist.

Now there is a typical bigot’s argument!

The Democratic Party in the south is the old Confederate Plantation Owner’s Party. The Republican Party in the south is the party of entrepreneurs and the rising middle class.

It is stolen directly from Jeff Foxworthy. I saw him say it to a large hall of southern folks who howled with laughter. Funny, you throw out some sort of regional stereotype, stick on an emoticon, and consider it suitable good humor. I quote a southern humorist, and you scream about bigotry…

OK - last word is yours…

And Don Imus’ remark was stolden from a rap song.

 

[SoCalRC]

Do you have a source for this?

The NYT published an opinion piece right after Pat Robertson claimed that Katrina was God’s retribution for legalized abortion on the 700 club. And the LA Times mentioned it again in their anniversary coverage of the tragedy.

Unfortunately, the administration has decided to stop publishing a number of annual reports on poverty, public health, and FEMA spending, so I’ll have to do some digging if you want the papers’ original sources.

I didn’t bother digging at either time because, frankly, it made sense to me. All the data we have seems to show a very strong link between poverty and abortion.

Best Regards

 

[estesbob]

I almost hate to point this out, but this appear to match what I said, “You don’t just see dead babies, but appear to have a whole belief system on the one, ‘true’ way to address the problem.”

All positive progress is, according to you, the result of specific efforts. Anything else is sitting “on the sidelines”. Which pretty much matches my other statement, “Further, you seem to perceive some specific Christian teachings as a direct threat to that plan, a point of view I simply do not understand.”

If pursuit of social justice is sitting “on the sidelines” for a Catholic, as you say, then, again, you are being disdainful of a core Christian teaching which was given emphasis in Jesus’ earthly ministry. And, no, I simply do not understand that.

But that brings us to the real difference between us. It isn’t abortion. I fully accept the Church’s teaching on abortion. In fact, by many Catholic’s standards I am quite conservative. For example, I have serious misgivings about the application of double effect in ectopic pregnancies, particularly since even secular society calls them abortions - other Catholics, like Vern, openly sneer at such doubts.

The real difference is, well, confidence. I disagree about how best to pursue Church teachings but, if you look carefully, you will find that I never said that other Catholics should not pursue other paths. You, on the other hand, claim to have complete conviction that other efforts are useless.

Without your utter confidence in my own rightousness, I have to look to Rome, the facts as best I can find them, and my concience. That means I have to consider things like a military occupation the Pope now has openly referred to as “evil”, a new policy of arming and assisting some Sunni militia who are, in turn, persecuting hundreds of thousands of fellow Christians, abortion rates going up in some states after a decade of steadily going down, an explosion of abortions in the aftermath of Katrina, Abramof scandal money being seriously tainted by the sex trade and forced abortions in Saipan, and a government that lets poison baby food and lead painted toys attack our small children on a massive scale from China…

I’m not saying all Catholics must consider these things. I’m saying I have to, at least until the Magesterium tells me that I can ignore all teachings but one. If you find this a sinful waste, fine. But I’m not you, I have no certainty, so I have to try to be the Tax Collector and spend a lot of time worrying about being the Pharisee.

The usual menal mastubationrequired one who supports pro-abortion canidates and at the same time claims he does so with the approval of the Church

 

[estesbob]

The NYT published an opinion piece right after Pat Robertson claimed that Katrina was God’s retribution for legalized abortion on the 700 club. And the LA Times mentioned it again in their anniversary coverage of the tragedy.

Unfortunately, the administration has decided to stop publishing a number of annual reports on poverty, public health, and FEMA spending, so I’ll have to do some digging if you want the papers’ original sources.

I didn’t bother digging at either time because, frankly, it made sense to me. All the data we have seems to show a very strong link between poverty and abortion.

Best Regards

I assume that mens you dont have a source.

 

[SoCalRC]

The usual menal mastubationrequired one who supports pro-abortion canidates and at the same time claims he does so with the approval of the Church

Yes, I agree that it is much easier if a person can be absolutely confident that one single issue supercedes all other teachings of Christ. Further, it must be quite helpful to not have to evaluate how politicians actually act, but only check a simple litmus test on what they say they believe.

But, alas, I have no such utter confidence. So, again, I look to Rome. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has published PARTICIPATION OF CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE, which I have given considerable study:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFPOLIF.HTM

You will notice that Rome mentions “fundamental and inalienable ethical demands” (plural), which specifically includes not just “abortion” and “euthenasia”, but also things like “modern forms of slavery”, “society’s protection of minors”, “education”, and “peace”.

Again, I’m not saying that other Catholics must follow the Church’s guidance in this, but I feel compelled to do my best.

I assume that mens you dont have a source.

Well, I gave two - both Newpapers give a couple of hits right away, but are ‘subscription only’, so I can’t post links. I mentioned that I have not dug deeper on the sources they use because I had no interest, but essentially offered to do so, regardless of what blessedtoo wanted to prove/disprove with the data.

I’ve already posted data showing strong statistical links to poverty, so there didn’t seem to be a need to relink. I guess I assumed that everyone can scroll…

 

[estesbob]

Yes, I agree that it is much easier if a person can be absolutely confident that one single issue supercedes all other teachings of Christ. Further, it must be quite helpful to not have to evaluate how politicians actually act, but only check a simple litmus test on what they say they believe.

But, alas, I have no such utter confidence. So, again, I look to Rome. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has published PARTICIPATION OF CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE, which I have given considerable study:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFPOLIF.HTM

You will notice that Rome mentions “fundamental and inalienable ethical demands” (plural), which specifically includes not just “abortion” and “euthenasia”, but also things like “modern forms of slavery”, “society’s protection of minors”, “education”, and “peace”.

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
   **
   **Cardinal Ratzinger

Well, I gave two - both Newpapers give a couple of hits right away, but are ‘subscription only’, so I can’t post links. I mentioned that I have not dug deeper on the sources they use because I had no interest, but essentially offered to do so, regardless of what blessedtoo wanted to prove/disprove with the data.

Like I said you have no source.

I

've already posted data showing strong statistical links to poverty, so there didn’t seem to be a need to relink. I guess I assumed that everyone can scroll…

No you haven’t. But in a really doesn’t matter. Like I said you’re pushing the old tired* better dead than underfed* argument to justify abortion. Its is a neat trick-it allows you to sidestep an vitally important moral issue by blaming it on the cruelty of those who don’t share your political views

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, I agree that it is much easier if a person can be absolutely confident that one single issue supercedes all other teachings of Christ. Further, it must be quite helpful to not have to evaluate how politicians actually act, but only check a simple litmus test on what they say they believe.

We have now killed four times as many innocent people, in this country alone as died in the Nazi Holocaust.

What issue trumps that?

 

[estesbob]

We have now killed four times as many innocent people, in this country alone as died in the Nazi Holocaust.

What issue trumps that?

Dislike of George Bush of course !

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If the secular authorities once again consider abortion a crime, how much time should a women convicted of aborting her child serve?

christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/augustweb-only/133-22.0.html

based on exodus 21:22

DRB: If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.

She should only pay a fine.

looking forward to your refutation employing hebrew.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Dislike of George Bush of course !

Ahhhh, yes. Dang that George Bush! Dang him, I say!

 

[SoCalRC]

1. **Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia…
   **

Exactly so, we are compelled to vote for a lessor evil. Look at Tom Delay. He says he would overturn Roe v. Wade, but so what? In the Congress, he is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. On the other hand, he did use his leadership position to maintain a situation involving human trafficing, forced prostitution, and the horrific practice of forced abortions in Saipan. A situation her personally profitted from.

Similiarly, he helped drive special legislation regarding Terri Schivo (sp?). Per John Paul II, removing hydration and nutrition is direct euthenasia, so in this instance he appeared to be taking a Catholic position. But, he also sponsored a bill that would have allow hospitals to start removing hydration and nutrition from patients with no means to pay. That is, he quietly tried to move us away from Catholic teaching while very publically standing with us in one case (even in that one case he appears to have cut language to stop the bill from applying beyond one individual). Again, he appears to have profitted in the form of perks and campaign contributions for medical corportation.

For me, this creates a dilemna, do I vote for someone who says he opposes abortion and euthenasia, but actually supports and profits from them, or do I support a candidate who takes the wrong position on something he/she cannot control, but at least does not use the position they have to promote sexual slavery, abortion, and euthanasia. (As a Catholic, I also would prefer to stay away from pedaphiles, sexual predators, and the whole nasty-gay-sex-in-
public-restrooms thing, but that is another issue.) I often find making such decisions very hard. I’m glad you find them easy.
estesbob;2687969:

No you haven’t. But in a really doesn’t matter. Like I said you’re pushing the old tired* better dead than underfed*

argument to justify abortion. Its is a neat trick-it allows you to sidestep an vitally important moral issue by blaming it on the cruelty of those who don’t share your political views

Yes, I linked to the Guttmacher report. I’ve also linked to the Catholics for Life stuff in another thread. But you are right, it really doesn’t matter. You insist on contending that I am a typical talk radio straw man. And I remain baffled on how anyone could consider Social Justice a mere political belief, particular in a Catholic forum called ‘Apologetics - Social Justice’…

Edit: I went looking to see if by #3, you meant the document in question (since then Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prefect). Interestingly, that brought up:

“From the specificity of the task at hand and the variety of circumstances, a plurality of morally acceptable policies and solutions arises. It is not the Church’s task to set forth specific political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person.”

How fortunately that you can step in with a single solution when the Church is disinclined to provide one.