T
Trelow
Guest
Just goes to show how much the left has changed in the last 60 years.
- Status
K
katherine2
Guest
whatever. I’m old left and proud of it.
T
Trelow
Guest
That’s fine. I know we don’t see eye to eye.Believe it or not, I even admire some of the old Democrats. It’s just the new ones I could do without.
You have to admit, the party just isn’t the same thing it was. If it was the world would be a much better place.
God bless.
B
Brad
Guest
katherine2 said:
No. Your analogy is apples and oranges.
A government has an objective responsibility to defend a human life from being killed by another human being which can be incorporated into law.
A government has subjective interests in limiting hunger which can be incorporated into policy.
Objective wrongs - reduced by law. Subjective societal difficulties - reduced by policy.
B
Brad
Guest
It is a sin to vote for someone because of their “pro-choice” position. The following is from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.
When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia
In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.
When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia
K
katherine2
Guest
Well, early American intervention in WW2, would be a government acting on its responsibility to defend human life from being killed by another. I thought the isolationists, the conservatives and Lindburg crowd were wrong. I’m not sure they were objectively sinful.
But you have another good point. Government has an objective responsibility to defend human life which can be incorporated into law.
I beleive defending unborn life can. Therefore I am pro-life. I know know people who beleive on this issue it cannot be incorporated into law (even President Bush makes this point). Some note nations like Brazil and the Phillipenes were abortion is illegal yet they have a higher abortion rate than the USA where it is unrestricted.
My answer? These are different cultures than the USA and the rule of law are responded to in different ways. I beleive pro-life laws would be effective in the USA.
Do I believe I am right that pro-life laws would be effective here? YES. Do I believe that those who disagree with me are not well reasoned? YES. Do I beleive they are objectively sinners because of theri lack of reason? NO.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
But you support politicians who actively promote the pro-choice side. How do you explain that?
K
katherine2
Guest
vern humphrey:
I also don’t know of a single person, incluidng some real loud mouth “its a sin to vote for pro-choice candidate”-types, who have followed that demand consistently for three or mor election cycles. I’m sure you, Vern, will be the first exception once I get to know you over the years.
I’ve never once had the honor of voting for a candidate who I agree with 100%.
I also don’t know of a single person, incluidng some real loud mouth “its a sin to vote for pro-choice candidate”-types, who have followed that demand consistently for three or mor election cycles. I’m sure you, Vern, will be the first exception once I get to know you over the years.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Katherine, dear, that’s a copout and you know it.
You equate voting for a candidate who may have a different position on taxes with voting for a candidate who supports the killing of thousands of children every day.
For a lady who talks about how rough it was in the old days, you seem to have adopted post-modernist deconstructionism pretty well. I say this because you consider a tax policy or some other issue morally equivallent to murdering babies.
K
katherine2
Guest
vern humphrey:
I noticed you’ve totally dodged the second part of my response. Afraid of something, Vern?
B
Brad
Guest
Incorrect analogy again. Those lives were protected by the laws of other nations. It then becomes a government judgement to intervene when those laws have gone awry.
The position that making abortion illegal, thereby cutting off all funding and legal operation for all pro-abortion groups is not reasonable. However, you are right - it is not sinful to believe this unreasonable position. BUT - it IS sinful to vote for someone specifically because they support the legalization and funding of abortions.
B
Brad
Guest
How about soft-spoken “it’s a sin to vote for someone specifically because of their pro-choice positition” types? Are they consistent? At least they are correctly expressing Church teaching in a soft manner.
K
katherine2
Guest
i don’t think Jewish lives were protected by the laws of Nazi era Germany. Do you have some contrary evidence?
I have no disagreement with you there.
B
Brad
Guest
See my previous post. I would classify this as “laws gone bad”. It then becomes a subjective decision by an outside government whether or not to intevene to save lives the outside government has no legal responsibility for. With abortions however, all persons have the rights to life and liberty - thus the unborn persons have legal rights granted by the US constitution. This is objectively true.
Hurray!
F
felra
Guest
I thought that this thread was poll the way it was worded. Anyways, “Yes”, being Pro-Abortion (Murder) is sinful. Jesus called us to a higher level of responsibility/accountability with His coming in person and leaving the promised in dwelling of the Holy Spirit, to where even our intentions are subject to judgement; Matthew 5:
20 I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21 15 16 "You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’
22 17 But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
Footnote 18: 18 [22] Anger is the motive behind murder, as the insulting epithets are steps that may lead to it. They, as well as the deed, are all forbidden. Raqa: an Aramaic word reqa’ or reqa probably meaning “imbecile,” “blockhead,” a term of abuse.
20 I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21 15 16 "You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’
22 17 But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
Footnote 18: 18 [22] Anger is the motive behind murder, as the insulting epithets are steps that may lead to it. They, as well as the deed, are all forbidden. Raqa: an Aramaic word reqa’ or reqa probably meaning “imbecile,” “blockhead,” a term of abuse.
K
katherine2
Guest
No, they were not laws gone bad but an absence of law. Its the difference between having a peach gone bad on my windowsill or no peach at all. teh Nazi’s had no “bad” laws protecting Jews.
B
Brad
Guest
I don’t think we really have an argument here either. All I’m saying is that at one time in Germany, Jews were protected as persons by law (not just natural or moral law but state law). Then, the Nazis took over and dehumanized them with their lack of protective law - this policy is “bad law” or “bad practice” or whatever you want to call it. My point (which we are rapidly losing sight of) is that it was still a subjective decision by the US gov’t to get involved or not. The US had no law that required involvement.
Humility on saying what the constitution says? How does one read the constituion in a humble manner? The US law protects all persons as proclaimed in the Constitution - that is all there is to it. Just because some want to twist, redefine, or ignore the words doesn’t make my reading of it arrogant.
As an aside (not saying you do this), this is a common tactic of some liberal-minded people that think to read a document as the author intended is to be a literalist or a fundamentalist or a bigot. Instead, some think we should put our own spin or interpretation on what was written based on our current worldview, culture, and timeframe. I think this is intellectual dishonesty. I would never want my words to be reshaped to mean something other than what I intended to suit someone’s fancy - I would want them to mean exactly what I intended.
K
katherine2
Guest
I understand. I was responding to your statement that "
A government has an objective responsibility to defend a human life from being killed by another human being".
I wasn’t readign that to only apply to a government’s own jurisdiction. I see your point, now.
I don’t have any dispute with you that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided. You and I are of one mind. I don’t have any doubt that “unborn persons have legal rights granted by the US constitution” – as you say. But I think humility requires us to hold back from a statement that “this is objectively true.” I personally can’t begin to understand why it is not true, but given the fact that 7 Supreme Court justices in 1973 and millions of Americans today don’t see it, (plus that fact that abortion was not illegal at the time of the Founding Fathers), I think we have some convincing to do.
B
Brad
Guest
I understand. They do not see it because they have been told lies about the constitution OR they choose not to see it. If it is the latter, no amount of convincing will change their mind - only a conversion to Christ will. If it is the former, they have to be taught regarding the constitution and I would think they would be open to it. They could always say “you are wrong - it is not objectively true” and then we could have a discussion with the documents in front of us. I don’t see how saying “it might be true” would get us anywhere.
All that said, humility is always a good thing and it is always good to be reminded that we need to pursue more of it - thanks. I will ask God for direction.
K
katherine2
Guest
Brad, her eis where I think you lack humility. if we can get away from Roe v. Wade, where I think you and I have no disagreement, I would seem what we are talking about is what is commonly called ‘strict constructionism’. Its a legal thery. Maybe it is a very good legal thery. However, its not “objective truth”.
- Status