Is it ok to abstain from

[Matt_Collins]

I’m sorry, you are correct. Not exactly a math wiz Still proof that Bush may have prevented a number of abortions over the past years.

Do you know an accurate estimate of civilian casualties? I find very different numbers everywhere I look.

No, I don’t know an accurate estimate. But whatever the estimate, by anyone’s accounting the number of partial birth abortions that might have been prevented by Bush and the Republicans is far less than the number of Iraqi civilian deaths. And it’s far less than the number of people who will die in the mayhem that will happen if we pull out of Iraq.

I get so frustrated when people are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because the Republicans have not been as pro-life as we would all like. It reminds me of a scene in the movie “Glory”:

Colonel Robert Gould Shaw (Matthew Broderick) asked a soldier (Denzel Washington) if he would like to carry the regiment’s colors (the American flag). It was a great honor to carry your regiment’s colors, so Colonel Shaw was surprised when the soldier refused saying, “I’ll fight, but I ain’t gonna carry your flag.” He then went on to explain that he wasn’t fighting for the Union, and that he was fighting for his own reasons. Furthermore, the soldier really didn’t think the black man was going to get anything out of winning the war - that Shaw, being a white man and wealthy would go home to his mansion after the war regardless of its outcome, and the black soldiers would be left with the same as they had before the war, which was nothing. In spite of the fact that the soldier had a valid point, Shaw’s simple answer was nonetheless sufficient to motivate the man. Shaw said, “Well you can be sure of this: You definitely won’t get anything if we lose.”

Well, we’re in that kind of a war here, and if we abandon the Republicans because they’ve twiddled with us for so long and we no longer believe they’re committed to the pro-life cause, just think of what it will be like if the Democrats win.

 

[sing]

So does Uganda. This is like the myth that NFP doesn’t work, when, in fact, it does, and better than artificial methods. Abstinence programs do work when done properly.

Granted, they aren’t as “fun” as progams than subconciously give you a license to have sex whenever you want with whomever you want, but then again, vegetables don’t taste as good as candy either.

I don’t believe NFP is effective for everyone. I think it’s silly. Yet, as a Catholic, I am prepared to use it(well, i was until medical treatment for endometriosis, including surgery, came up). Your generalizations are unfair, and demeaning to those of us who feel like we’d be better Catholics if we were lobotomized.

I’m curious why am I not allowed to post my experiences with soldiers? Everyone else is doing it, why am I not allowed to talk about my friends.

I don’t like seeing innocent Iraqis die, but they have been dying for decades, and will continue to do so. They die because terrorists blow them up. Where was your sympathy for them prior to this war???

He man, I was an extremely sheltered child before the war. My only knowledge of Iraq, until I was about 14, was that he was for some reason evil, though only slightly more evil than President Clinton. I didn’t exactly have opportunity to

Seriously, people, lets lighten up on the personal attacks, and
practice a little more charity.

And, for the record, I don’t advocate immediate withdrawal of the troops. I want a timeline, and i want it to have a gradual withdrawal. Not cutting funding, or anything of that nature.

Oh, and why does no one care that the Vatican happens to have been against the Iraq war from the beginning?

 

[Matt_Collins]

Oh, and why does no one care that the Vatican happens to have been against the Iraq war from the beginning?

Because the pope is infallible when defining matters of doctrine and morals, but not in applying them to specific historical situations. Just because the pope supports or opposes a particular war does not mean that the war is moral or immoral.

BTW, some of the statements that have come out of the Vatican over the last year are oversimplifications of very complex realities. Statements that “War is never the answer” and “War in God’s name can never be justified” fly in the face of reality.

War was certainly the answer to Hitler’s aggression, and, frankly, war in God’s name is the ONLY war that’s justified, if you think about it, because God IS Justice, just as much as he is Love.

I agree that war can never be used to force a religion on anyone, but to say that “war is never the answer” is to try to sum up a very complex reality in a single sentence that will fit on a bumper sticker. It is not helpful. It ultimately confuses the issue. It expresses a feeling, but not a truth. It feels good to say it, but it’s wrong.

 

[sing]

I’m not a pacifist, neither have I heard pacifist statements from the Vatican. Just that the Iraq war didn’t pass the requirements for a just war.

 

[HopeFull_Mom]

No, I don’t know an accurate estimate. But whatever the estimate, by anyone’s accounting the number of partial birth abortions that might have been prevented by Bush and the Republicans is far less than the number of Iraqi civilian deaths. And it’s far less than the number of people who will die in the mayhem that will happen if we pull out of Iraq.

I get so frustrated when people are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because the Republicans have not been as pro-life as we would all like. It reminds me of a scene in the movie “Glory”:

Colonel Robert Gould Shaw (Matthew Broderick) asked a soldier (Denzel Washington) if he would like to carry the regiment’s colors (the American flag). It was a great honor to carry your regiment’s colors, so Colonel Shaw was surprised when the soldier refused saying, “I’ll fight, but I ain’t gonna carry your flag.” He then went on to explain that he wasn’t fighting for the Union, and that he was fighting for his own reasons. Furthermore, the soldier really didn’t think the black man was going to get anything out of winning the war - that Shaw, being a white man and wealthy would go home to his mansion after the war regardless of its outcome, and the black soldiers would be left with the same as they had before the war, which was nothing. In spite of the fact that the soldier had a valid point, Shaw’s simple answer was nonetheless sufficient to motivate the man. Shaw said, “Well you can be sure of this: You definitely won’t get anything if we lose.”

Well, we’re in that kind of a war here, and if we abandon the Republicans because they’ve twiddled with us for so long and we no longer believe they’re committed to the pro-life cause, just think of what it will be like if the Democrats win.

Good point, I agree!!

 

[He_Man]

I don’t believe NFP is effective for everyone. I think it’s silly. Yet, as a Catholic, I am prepared to use it(well, i was until medical treatment for endometriosis, including surgery, came up). Your generalizations are unfair, and demeaning to those of us who feel like we’d be better Catholics if we were lobotomized.

I’m curious why am I not allowed to post my experiences with soldiers? Everyone else is doing it, why am I not allowed to talk about my friends.

He man, I was an extremely sheltered child before the war. My only knowledge of Iraq, until I was about 14, was that he was for some reason evil, though only slightly more evil than President Clinton. I didn’t exactly have opportunity to

Seriously, people, lets lighten up on the personal attacks, and
practice a little more charity.

And, for the record, I don’t advocate immediate withdrawal of the troops. I want a timeline, and i want it to have a gradual withdrawal. Not cutting funding, or anything of that nature.

Oh, and why does no one care that the Vatican happens to have been against the Iraq war from the beginning?

I think you mistake being harsh and/or terse with personal attacks. These are gravely serious issues, hence the lack of levity…

Anyway, I was not a huge proponent of the war going in, but that was a negotiable issue, theologically. Abortion isn’t.

And it just pains me when people compare the loss of lives from abortion to those in war. They simply are not comparable, as I said, in magnitude or in any other way.

I love the environment as hate seeing it damaged as much as any liberal, but left to their druthers, the left would create a healthy planet full animals, since the humans would all be dead.

 

[BlestOne]

I’m not a pacifist, neither have I heard pacifist statements from the Vatican. Just that the Iraq war didn’t pass the requirements for a just war.

Let’s talk about the whole story…
Vatican was against the war in the beginning…yes
Vatican also said if we go in we should complete the mission…yes
Is it complete?.. NO
Will having a set and published guideline help?.. Absolutely not!
Do we already have a timeline in mind?.. Yep! You can bet on it!
Are we stupid enough to publish it so our enemies can hope to wait us out?.. I hope not!
Matt Collins:

Whether we like it or not, whether we should have gone in there or not, we are there. The situation is bad. It is dangerous. Whether or not we caused the situation is irrelevant at this point. We cannot morally leave them to the mercy of people who are trying to kill them. Even if it means thousands of more American soldiers must die to protect them

I couldn’t agree more!

 

[sing]

and i believe that if pro-war politicians were left to do their will, they’d creat an unhealthy planet AND all the people would be dead.

By personal attacks, I was meaning, for example, a poster asking if I was John Kerry. I have nothing against John Kerry, but I know a lot of conservatives hate him. So I took it as a personal attack.

I know a lot of people who have joined the military only for lack of financial options, and others who considered joining as a way to get out of negative situations, but couldn’t find it in themselves to contribute to the war.

 

[LilyM]

We are, I believe, all obligated to vote. The fact is we probably won’t get a candidate who gives us all of what we want.

But we can, if we do all vote and conscientiously choose the best possible candidates, prevent the worse guys from getting vote in. I think that fact alone puts us under an obligation to vote - voter turnout in so many countries, including the US oftentimes, is low, and winning margins relatively slim. So if all eligible voters got out there and did their bit there’d be at least some changes

 

[He_Man]

I don’t believe NFP is effective for everyone. I think it’s silly. Yet, as a Catholic, I am prepared to use it(well, i was until medical treatment for endometriosis, including surgery, came up). Your generalizations are unfair, and demeaning to those of us who feel like we’d be better Catholics if we were lobotomized.

I’m curious why am I not allowed to post my experiences with soldiers? Everyone else is doing it, why am I not allowed to talk about my friends.

Also, you can post whatever you want to. I was simply saying, lest anyone be swayed, that it is simply anecdotal evidence; it is nor more or less valid than any anecdotal evidence I offer.

Also, please tell me what method of birth “control” is effective for everyone? Abstinence is, I know that. But I am not supposed to worry about the effectiveness, I am supposed to simply obey, and trust God. Don’t equate extreme faith and loyalty to the Magesterium with having a lobotomy. Do I feel less than a man because I do whatever the Pope says in matters of faith and morals? On the contrary, I feel great security knowing that I have taken the counsel of Peter’s successor. Many of these matters REQUIRE a single voice, or else there can be no clear direction. How does one determine “right”, when there are no absolutes?

I applaud you for your obedience to the Church in spite of your concerns; we all could learn from that, myself included.

 

[Erich]

No. B shows that you don’t like any of the candidates. C will be interpreted that you were too lazy to vote. Go for B and use Pro-Life Rita rather than Sparky the Dog.

I’d bet that if “None of the above” were on the ballot as one of the choices it would come away with at least a plurality if not an outright majority

 

[Rach620]

abstinence programs are not effective, they result in more pregnancies and STDs.

Source? Uganda–a country ravaged by AIDS, so obviously one where disease prevention matters–has had some success with it.

I personally don’t even think abstinence education is the most effective. What we really need is chastity education, teaching young people about the inherent value of their bodies and sexuality so that they won’t cheapen it by having premarital sex, rather than using STD and pregnancy scare statistics. Chastity is a virtue for every human person at every stage in their life; abstinence only applies during certain periods.

Another thing–there is a connection between the advent of widely available birth control and increasing STD rates. Until the 1950s, there were basically 2-3 STDs plaguing mankind; now there’s anywhere from 30-50 different varieties. Maybe it’s a message from Mother Nature (or, hm, GOD) that we should stop abusing ourselves with meaningless sex.

And this trust that contraception is utterly safe, even from a non-psychological standpoint, is ridiculous. There are documented dangers with every type of artificial birth control; you just don’t hear about most of them.

And lets not forget that he did approve funding for some embryonic stem cell research.

A very small concession that allowed for continued research on lines of stem cells from embryos which had already been killed. Sure, no one wants it to continue at all, but at least halting the advance of the scientific culture of death is a step. What would a pro-choice democrat, or, for the sake of debate, Giuliani or McCain done in this situation?

 

[sing]

Also, you can post whatever you want to. I was simply saying, lest anyone be swayed, that it is simply anecdotal evidence; it is nor more or less valid than any anecdotal evidence I offer.

Also, please tell me what method of birth “control” is effective for everyone? Abstinence is, I know that. But I am not supposed to worry about the effectiveness, I am supposed to simply obey, and trust God. Don’t equate extreme faith and loyalty to the Magesterium with having a lobotomy. Do I feel less than a man because I do whatever the Pope says in matters of faith and morals? On the contrary, I feel great security knowing that I have taken the counsel of Peter’s successor. Many of these matters REQUIRE a single voice, or else there can be no clear direction. How does one determine “right”, when there are no absolutes?
.

I used the word lobotomy because, in areas where I cannot bring myself to agree with Church teaching, I feel like I’m supposed to disregard everything my intelligence tells me. It’s incredibly frustrating to have to go along with something that every cell in your brain is screaming against. What’s the point of having a brain if you’re not supposed to use it? But in the end, I love the Church, and I will be Catholic till the day I die, it’s part of who I am. So, I go against the screaming.

 

[Rach620]

I get so frustrated when people are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because the Republicans have not been as pro-life as we would all like.
…
Well, we’re in that kind of a war here, and if we abandon the Republicans because they’ve twiddled with us for so long and we no longer believe they’re committed to the pro-life cause, just think of what it will be like if the Democrats win.

Exactly. That’s what we’re dealing with now–the Democrats are in control of Congress because people shied away from supporting Republicans in the last election. From what we’ve seen so far, though, they’re not going to do much of anything to address the essential issues in a manner which I can support.

There are just wildly different worldviews at stake here. I get the perception from a lot of democrats that they’d rather just pull out of Iraq, isolate the US and pretend that the Middle East doesn’t exist. Well that might work until the next attack on US (or any other Western nation’s) soil.

There are deep-seated instabilities in the Middle East that need to be addressed/worked out. I for one am not sure it’s even possible to fix the mess in Iraq; the Iraqis need to take some initiative themselves and stop killing their countrymen. But certainly if the US leaves in the near future any potential for stability could be lost forever. Same with a timeline–so they’ll hold off for a few years, and when we leave, fall to pieces.

There’s just no easy way out of it, but blaming Bush/the Republicans for “getting us into this war” isn’t going to help anything.

 

[Matt_Collins]

I’m not a pacifist, neither have I heard pacifist statements from the Vatican. Just that the Iraq war didn’t pass the requirements for a just war.

An opinion from people who:

1. were not the ones with the authority to make the decision, and
2. were not the ones with the information to make the decision.

Rather, they are charged with reminding those whose responsibility it is to make the decision (i.e., the president and congress) of the principles they should use to determine whether or not the requirements for a just war are met.

In the end, however, it is the president and congress who must apply those principles and make the decision. The Vatican may express its opinion, but it is not able to speak authoritatively on the matter. Catholics and others of good will should certainly listen to what the Vatican says, but they are not bound in conscience to obey.

 

[Rach620]

I don’t believe NFP is effective for everyone. I think it’s silly. Yet, as a Catholic, I am prepared to use it(well, i was until medical treatment for endometriosis, including surgery, came up). Your generalizations are unfair, and demeaning to those of us who feel like we’d be better Catholics if we were lobotomized.

I used the word lobotomy because, in areas where I cannot bring myself to agree with Church teaching, I feel like I’m supposed to disregard everything my intelligence tells me. It’s incredibly frustrating to have to go along with something that every cell in your brain is screaming against. What’s the point of having a brain if you’re not supposed to use it? But in the end, I love the Church, and I will be Catholic till the day I die, it’s part of who I am. So, I go against the screaming.

Just because you feel like you’re right, doesn’t mean that you are. The way you think, as a fallen human being living in a culture of death, is not free from error. That’s where submitting oneself to the authority of the Church comes in.

But even so, I’m not saying that to be a Catholic requires blind submission to something you don’t understand. Christ himself was the Word of God made flesh, the Wisdom of the Father incarnate. At the heart of what we believe is a mystery that we can’t fathom–but as persons made in the image of God, we have the ability to intellectually understand much of what the Church teaches. Sexual morality is one such area which we can understand and should, with well-formed consciences, accept.

Supporting NFP is not ‘silly’ or ‘irrational’; it makes incredible sense, once one has the proper foundation in the theology of the body. With that understanding in place, anything less than sex the way God intended–un-contracepted and within marriage–IS silly indeed.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

War is nasty, but a war has been going on against the unborn for 40 years. This war gets virtually no column space in our newspapers, no sad cover story. The little reported is pro-war on the unborn. Imagine if 2000 Iraqui civilians had been held down and their brains sucked out-there’s civilian dead, and then there’s horror! Do you think any paper would not report it?
No offence, I am not going to trust any politician, even if they want to give us the moon on a plate, who would support this daily, silent, horiffic, mass slaughter of the unborn. They have either got to be very, very evil or very, very blind.

 

[jc-servant]

It is ludicrous to equate the death penalty with abortion, or even with the Iraq war. The numbers are so far apart that it is insulting to every pre-born baby, and every soldier in Iraq, and every innocent citizen in Iraq to put a politician’s position on the death penalty on a par with those two issues, whatever your position on them is. It’s like rearranging the deck chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

Thanks for misreading my post and then calling it ludicrous. If I was not already firmly pro-life, you would not be winning me over with the tone of your post.

I never said that all life issues were equal, and I did not bring up Iraq at all. You appear to be attributing some war discussion to my post that is not there. My point was that the record of action on all pro-life issues combined does not equal true pro-life party, so merely saying that we should use someone’s “stated” position on abortion as a litmus test is over simplifying the process of choosing our candidate. We ended up with a pro-abortion Republican doctor getting elected to Congress here in TX several years ago because people voted for the party without checking into the actual candidate more closely.

You may choose to define pro-life as solely about abortion, but our church does not. The statements in the catechism about the death penalty and euthanasia show that these issues are part of the overall subject of respecting life from the cradle to the grave. Because I choose to investigate in further depth than the mere statements by a politician that they are against abortion does not make my actions ludicrous or futile.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

A statement supporting keeping abortion legal is a statement against the truth that humans are humans from conception and that murder of innocence is gravely wrong.

While a pro-life statement may be insufficent for support, a proabortion statement is sufficient to remove my support and neccesary, since they have set themselves in opposition to Jesus.

 

[Matt_Collins]

Thanks for misreading my post and then calling it ludicrous. If I was not already firmly pro-life, you would not be winning me over with the tone of your post.

I sincerely apologize. In the heat of the moment I saw your discussion of the death penalty as an attempt to put it on an equal footing with both abortion and the Iraq war. I’ve dealt with so many people over the years who will vote for a rabidly pro-abortion politician like Barbara Mikulski, justifying it by saying that they opposed the death penalty.

I, too, oppose the death penalty, but for very different reasons than the “seamless garment” argument, which I believe is completely flawed. There is a world of difference between a convicted murderer and a pre-born baby. The seamless garment argument ignores these differences and attempts to apply a completely pacifist interpretation of the Gospel to the question. An interpretation that is simply not valid.

I apologize for jumping on you like that. You took the brunt of my frustration.

My point was that the record of action on all pro-life issues combined does not equal true pro-life party, so merely saying that we should use someone’s “stated” position on abortion as a litmus test is over simplifying the process of choosing our candidate. We ended up with a pro-abortion Republican doctor getting elected to Congress here in TX several years ago because people voted for the party without checking into the actual candidate more closely.

I agree 100%.

You may choose to define pro-life as solely about abortion, but our church does not.

And neither do I. However, I do give different weight to different pro-life issues, and while I oppose the death penalty, I put it pretty much at the bottom of my pro-life priority list. I would much rather have a politician who opposed abortion and supported the death penalty than the other way around. I think that it is NOT inconsistent to hold those two positions together, and is FAR, FAR superior to the other way around.