Is Being Pro-Abortion Sinful?

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

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”.

Strict constructionism is based on original intent. Original intent is the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers and the Debates on Ratification. Original intent for later amendments is found in the Congressional and State debates when the amendment was passed and ratified.

That is a body of data which can be objectively identified and assessed. Rulings that do not cite relevant original intent can be assumed – to a fairly high degree – to not be strictly construed.

 

[katherine2]

vern humphrey:

Strict constructionism is based on original intent. Original intent is the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers and the Debates on Ratification. Original intent for later amendments is found in the Congressional and State debates when the amendment was passed and ratified.

That is a body of data which can be objectively identified and assessed. Rulings that do not cite relevant original intent can be assumed – to a fairly high degree – to not be strictly construed.

vern,

I understand the theory. But its just that – a particular school of legal reasoning.

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

vern,

I understand the theory. But its just that – a particular school of legal reasoning.

But it is the only school of legal reasoning to which an objective standard can be applied.

When the courts deviate from it, they eventually reach the place where the Supreme Court of Massachusetts arrived, ruing on gay marriage based on “an emerging consensus” – an oxymoron if ever there was one!

 

[katherine2]

vern humphrey:

But it is the only school of legal reasoning to which an objective standard can be applied.

When the courts deviate from it, they eventually reach the place where the Supreme Court of Massachusetts arrived, ruing on gay marriage based on “an emerging consensus” – an oxymoron if ever there was one!

and the strict constructionist school has its flaws and limitations as well.

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

and the strict constructionist school has its flaws and limitations as well.

Such as?

Strict Construction WOULD prevent the government from doing many things it does now. But the Founders provided for amending the Constitution – if we need to do something that isn’t constitutional then we should amend.

If we CAN’T amend, then we shouldn’t do.

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

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”.

“Strict constructionism” used to be called “reading” before the lawyers and judges got carried away. (I was going to use a different term for “carried away” but I’m working on that humility).
Besides, when politicians use the term “strict constructionalist”, they are talking about judges than interpret the law rather than reading into it what they want so that they can change the law.

What I was refering to as objective truth is this:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

What does this mean other than what is says?

The Judges in Roe V. Wade said that if unborn babies were considered persons, they would have no case for abortion.

We are now in the 21st century and the marvels of science and technology tell us that the unborn child is indeed a person just like you and me.

This is where we are. Because some want to ignore these statements does not make them less true.

 

[Brad]

vern humphrey:

Strict constructionism is based on original intent. Original intent is the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers and the Debates on Ratification. Original intent for later amendments is found in the Congressional and State debates when the amendment was passed and ratified.

That is a body of data which can be objectively identified and assessed. Rulings that do not cite relevant original intent can be assumed – to a fairly high degree – to not be strictly construed.

Yes - but those that do not want the original intent to be what it was will always find a way to re-interpret even the Congressional and State debates. They will make lofty claims of being great thinkers and not being evil literalists - all the while not giving a hoot about an author or speaker’s original intent.

 

[Brad]

vern humphrey:

Such as?

Strict Construction WOULD prevent the government from doing many things it does now. But the Founders provided for amending the Constitution – if we need to do something that isn’t constitutional then we should amend.

If we CAN’T amend, then we shouldn’t do.

EXACTLY. Judges shouldn’t make. They should interpret and leave the making to the people and their representatives.

 

[katherine2]

We are now in the 21st century and the marvels of science and technology tell us that the unborn child is indeed a person just like you and me.

Ahh, so we are NOT using original intent but adjusting our reading to include new knowledge.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Brad:

Yes - but those that do not want the original intent to be what it was will always find a way to re-interpret even the Congressional and State debates. They will make lofty claims of being great thinkers and not being evil literalists - all the while not giving a hoot about an author or speaker’s original intent.

As a wise man once said, “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.”

There is no absolutely cheat-proof way to rein in judges. But we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There ARE some things we can do – and one of them is for Congress to exercise its power under Article 3, Section 2, which allows Congress to make rules governing how the courts exercise their jurisdiction. We can objectively state what the sources for Original Intent are, and require all rulings to be based on Original Intent.

Now, as you say, that isn’t fool-proof – but it would go a long way to improving the situation

 

[serendipity]

katherine2:

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.

:yup:

To be effective against abortion, more needs to be done than just discussing and suggesting laws that illegalize abortion. The factors which lead women to believe that they have no alternative but to terminate their pregnancy must be addressed as well.

Candidates who make it more difficult for people to obtain or maintain a living wages; access to safe housing; treatment for mental and physical illnesses; shelters and treatment for drug addicts, homeless, and abused; access to child care services; and opportunties for decent education from cradle to career, regardless of their income group and just as guilty of promoting abortion as if they advocate abortion laws. If these problems in society are not remedied, than if abortion became illegal, people would still seek them and only the poor will die becuase the rich always have options outside of the country.

As for the question of sin itself, that is the sole perogative of God. Only he knows an individual’s true intention and remorse.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To be effective against abortion, more needs to be done than just discussing and suggesting laws that illegalize abortion. The factors which lead women to believe that they have no alternative but to terminate their pregnancy must be addressed as well.

Candidates who make it more difficult for people to obtain or maintain a living wages; access to safe housing; treatment for mental and physical illnesses; shelters and treatment for drug addicts, homeless, and abused; access to child care services; and opportunties for decent education from cradle to career, regardless of their income group and just as guilty of promoting abortion as if they advocate abortion laws. If these problems in society are not remedied, than if abortion became illegal, people would still seek them and only the poor will die becuase the rich always have options outside of the country.

As for the question of sin itself, that is the sole perogative of God. Only he knows an individual’s true intention and remorse.
[/quote]

Let’s start by frankly stating that there are no factors which justify abortion – no more than there are factors which justify a motorist driving off after he’s run over someone.

He can say, “I was afraid I’d be arrested for DWI,” or “I was afraid I’d be sued” – but those excuses don’t work.

 

[serendipity]

I did not say “justify.” I said people feel they have no recourse but to have abortion for some reasons and these reasons need to be addressed or abortion will not end. I volunteered with Birthright when I lived in MA. Unfortunately, there are none near me now, becuae it was much needed work. But it is distressing how many people want to have babies and how little services there are available to help them, if they have sincere obstacles in their life once they decide that they want to do the right thing.

 

[vern_humphrey]

serendipity:

I did not say “justify.” I said people feel they have no recourse but to have abortion for some reasons and these reasons need to be addressed or abortion will not end. I volunteered with Birthright when I lived in MA. Unfortunately, there are none near me now, becuae it was much needed work. But it is distressing how many people want to have babies and how little services there are available to help them, if they have sincere obstacles in their life once they decide that they want to do the right thing.

You could use the same argument for a drunk who just ran over a child in the street. He feels he has no recourse but to flee the scene and leave the child lying there to be run over by the next car to come along.

When we advance ideas like this, we become enablers.

I’m quite willing to help a girl who’s pregnant. I’m not willing to even entertain the idea that there is some justification for abortion.

 

[katherine2]

vern humphrey:

I’m quite willing to help a girl who’s pregnant. I’m not willing to even entertain the idea that there is some justification for abortion.

serendipity, who is a beautiful soul, has twiced explained to you that no one is talking about justifing abortion, but actions of which the result will be abortion.

**And, if I may be blunt, Vern, your not willing to help a girl who is pregnant because the rhetoric you throw out is unhelpful and alienating to such girls. **

**Maybe you should spend less time getting jollies from pontificating and more time engaging in an activity that at the end of the day actual saves a life. **

 

[vern_humphrey]

serendipity, who is a beautiful soul, has twiced explained to you that no one is talking about justifing abortion, but actions of which the result will be abortion.

Your own words seem to say these actions are justified, and will result in abortion – which is exactly what I’m opposing.

Rhetoric has an impact – and this is the wrong rhetoric.

And, if I may be blunt, Vern, your not willing to help a girl who is pregnant because the rhetoric you throw out is unhelpful and alienating to such girls. .

And if I may bre blunt, Katherine, I do a lot more than you know – I just don’t justify abortion, either through saying there are reasonable excuses for it, nor by supporting pro-abortion politicians.

**Maybe you should spend less time getting jollies from pontificating and more time engaging in an activity that at the end of the day actual saves a life. **

Funny, I was just about to say the same thing to you, Katherine. Your claims to have won the Second World War don’t justify your support for the pro-abortion postion.

Your words are one thing, you actions another.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

serendipity:

I did not say “justify.” I said people feel they have no recourse but to have abortion for some reasons and these reasons need to be addressed or abortion will not end.

People have committed all sorts of atrocities with those words:

“people feel they have no recourse but to have slaves for some reasons and these reasons need to be addressed or slavery will not end.”

“people feel they have no recourse but to kill infidels for some reasons and these reasons need to be addressed or killing infidels will not end.”

“people feel they have no recourse but to rape for some reasons and these reasons need to be addressed or rape will not end.”

etc…

Human beings always have reasons, that’s why police look for motives when a crime is committed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Gabriel Gale:

People have committed all sorts of atrocities with those words:

“people feel they have no recourse but to have slaves for some reasons and these reasons need to be addressed or slavery will not end.”

“people feel they have no recourse but to kill infidels for some reasons and these reasons need to be addressed or killing infidels will not end.”

“people feel they have no recourse but to rape for some reasons and these reasons need to be addressed or rape will not end.”

Human beings always have reasons, that’s why police look for motives when a crime is committed.

And as I said earlier, a drunk who runs over a child might feel he has no recourse but to flee the scene – and leave the child to be run over again.

A woman who dislikes her husband and wants to marry someone else, might feel that she has no recourse but to kill him.

 

[katherine2]

in other words, part of the problem is the Catholic Church and such initiatives as Project Gabrial with the silly rhetoric that “in every abortion there are two victims”.

Shouldn’t the Church stop saying this and start saying there is one victim and one murderess.

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

in other words, part of the problem is the Catholic Church and such initiatives as Project Gabrial with the silly rhetoric that “in every abortion there are two victims”.

Shouldn’t the Church stop saying this and start saying there is one victim and one murderess.

To some extent I agree, but realize many women who have abortions have been indoctrinated with false information and thus are killing out of ignorance, not malice. I certainly remember when Planned Parenthood proclaimed that abortion was ‘less traumatic than having a tooth removed’ and that all you were doing was removing a ‘blob of tissue.’ If you don’t believe the latter ridiculous argument is still operative you can see Tlaloc spouting the same blather on another thread right here on this board. People STILL believe this theory. They simply do not know that from conception the “blob of tissue” has all of the elements of a human being. It just needs the right environment and some time. Many women do not know this and the abortion lobby is working hard to be sure they never learn. Particularly if the woman is young, desperate, and ignorant, she may be easily pushed to abortion. She might think this is ‘the best thing…’ using the soothing…“we want every child to be a WANTED child…”

I think this is like any other sin. If you are aware of what you are doing and still choose to kill, then you are a murderess. If you are ignorant and pushed into the decision, then I believe it has a different standard. Maybe someone better versed in the Catechism can expand on this.

Lisa N