Is This the Death of the Catholic Church in Ireland?

[FirstFiveEighth]

No, I was saying exactly the opposite.

 

[Jeanne_S]

You are wrong.Look it up ,he indeed voted against it due to certain aspects of the bill he felt would ultimately prevent a woman from having an abortion.This is why he gave the speech re his reasons for voting against it while he was POTUs.Included n this speech was the comment about not " punishing a woman with a baby"

 

[HCTC]

You are wrong.Look it up ,he indeed voted against it due to certain aspects of the bill he felt would ultimately prevent a woman from having an abortion.This is why he gave the speech re his reasons for voting against it while he was POTUs.Included n this speech was the comment about not " punishing a woman with a baby"

I’ve already looked it up. Obama could not pissibly have voted against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 because he was serving in the Illinois State Senate at the time that this act was being voted on at the FEDERAL level. You should remove your comment because it is a reprehensible falsehood.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Obama was the only one in the Illinois legislature to not vote for the infant Born Alive Act.He then went on live TV giving a press conference in 2012 explaining why he didn’t vote for it.Look it up.No I am not removing any of my comments and don’t appreciate you trying to throw me under the bus for these comments.Nothing false about whT I posted.

 

[dvdjs]

Obama was the only one in the Illinois legislature to not vote for the infant Born Alive Act.

Come on. If you point is that Obama supported women’s choice at detailed in Roe v. Wade, there is no disagreement. But this:

thanks to Obama and his pro death support of abortion by voting against the infant born alive act,countless babies who have survived an abortion are left to die alone,cold and in agony.

is simply untrue, and the infidelity to the truth - however it might be described as directionaly sound, or only embellished - undercuts the point that you may be trying to make.

Obama was the only one in the Illinois legislatur

I am not sure where you get this idea. Legislation was introduced in 2001, 2002, and again after the Federal legislation had passed, in 2003. If any of these bill came up for a vote, and Obama was the lone dissenter they would have passed. The Illinois legislature passed a bill in 2005 IIRC, with changes in language that removed some issues. Obama was in DC by that point but stated he would have supported that bill.

 

[Jeanne_S]

He would have supported the bill if not for certain aspects that concerned him re a woman’s right to abort.He was the lone dissenter in the Illinois legislature.I remember hearing his speech about punishing a woman with a baby,this was while he was walking back his dissenting vote while in the Illanois legislature.That he would throw out the baby with the bathwayer( no pun tended) clearly shows where he stands re abortion.

 

[grotto]

The cancer of evil got an inch of Ireland when the Irish were exposed to the many sins of their Catholic priests and nuns. Satan got the inch and then went for the mile. The rightful anger against those of the Faith that betrayed God left the people angry and weakened. They could not separate the sinful acts from the Church Jesus started with St. Peter. I think they were abandoned by the Vatican in a way in how to be rid of the sinners and yet keep their Churches, schools, homes for homeless children and all the varieties. It is the younger people that grab an issue and ply it in many “different - not necessarily good ways”. Ireland is a small country, maybe the strong and wiser people will undo the worst thing their nation can do - kill their children. America is very large and must fight bigger and harder to undo the evil that has been done. Thanks be to God we have got an inch going! We won’t stop at a mile, I pray. Suffering will befall those that follow evil.

 

[dvdjs]

if not for certain aspects that concerned him re a woman’s right to abort.

Agreed.

He was the lone dissenter in the Illinois legislature.

Unsubstantiated and implausible.

I remember hearing his speech about punishing a woman with a baby

I remember it too.

hat he would throw out the baby with the bathwaye

His objections to the bills was not about an interest in throwing babies out with the bathwater - although it was framed that was by Pinnochio reapers in the 2008 campaign - but of avoiding language that would undermine Roe v. Wade.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Does that make him any less pro abortion? Not in my opinion it doesn’t .Again,very telling that he would consider a baby as punishment,don’t you agree?

 

[dvdjs]

Does that make him any less pro abortion?

No. But the phony charge is that he supported infanticide.

Again,very telling that he would consider a baby as punishment,don’t you agree?

Not really.

I am pretty sure that he does not sees his children as punishment. By all accounts he is a good father.

However awful the phrase, it would help us all - if we ever want to move forward - to understand why some people who want to have abortions want to have them. Some are in fear of their lives. Some are in fear of destitution. Some are in fear of a radical change in their lives that they are unprepared for and uncommitted to. Some are in fear of never being able to recovery from the trauma of rape or incest. There are situations in which the challenges and burdens faced seem to outweigh the joy. And for many in such situations, being forced by law to carry the child to term and to support the child to maturity could understandably be seen as punitive. I think that when people talk of assuming the consequences for sexual activity - even if ithad been non-consensual - that also sounds punitive.

I think that the word is sad, but not beyond understanding in a matter of fact way, rather than one that reveals a personal mindset.

 

[Jeanne_S]

DI am well aware of the myriad reasons a woman may choose to have an abortion.However,those reasons in no way negate the e il of abortion and in reality the fact that most women who abort are just trading what they view as a problem for a much greater and lifelong problem.Havei g the POTUS regard an unwanted pregnancy as a punishment doesn’t help the delimma these woman face,only encourages their decision to,abort.Maybe Obama experienced a Freudian slip with that comment

 

[dvdjs]

Havei g the POTUS regard an unwanted pregnancy as a punishment doesn’t help the delimma these woman face,only encourages their decision to,abort.Maybe Obama experienced a Freudian slip with that comment

I think that that is fair. Sadly, the lines are presently drawn between those who are seeking secure the right to choose versus those who are seeking to withdraw that right. There is far to little attention paid either to supporting alternatives or to mitigating burdens…

 

[TheLittleLady]

Seriously, does every debate about life come down to a former POTUS and someone who did not win the election? The 2014 election is over. It is time to put it to bed and move on!

 

[TheLittleLady]

And Donald Trump was vocally pro choice in 1999 and defended Planned Parenthood as recently as 2016. Trump in 1999: ‘I am Very Pro-Choice’

What does what any politician says have to do with our duty to care for people who need our help?

 

[ProVobis]

Not equal. At least Obama issued an EO to prohibit the ACA from covering abortions. Say what you want but it’s on record.

 

[exnihilo]

We can never impose morality on others through collusion with the state.

That is what all laws are for. You aren’t saying we should oppose laws against murder and theft? We might not want to have every immoral act punished but every law is a moral claim.

 

[Vouthon]

Some people seem to think that the state, rather than pursuing the common good, should dictate morality. The problem is that you cannot save people from themselves through state legislated moralism.

Abortion is a life issue, like euthanasia, so I can understand why one would feel uncomfortable applying that logic to this particular act, but otherwise? No, I stand by my statement 100%.

Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine of Hippo both maintained that prostitution was gravely immoral, yet they did not see its immorality as sufficient to justify a legal proscription of the practice by civil governments. Aquinas advocated tolerance of prostitution by noting: “Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain evils be incurred: thus Augustine says [De ordine 2.4]: ‘If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.’”

The historian Vincent Dever concisely summarized Aquinas’ thoughts on this:

illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL13/13ch4.html

While civil law does forbid certain vicious acts such as murder and theft, and requires certain acts of virtue such as caring for one’s children and paying one’s debts, it cannot “forbid all vicious acts” nor can it prescribe “all acts of virtue.” Aside from the fact that it would supplant the need for eternal law, why cannot civil law be enacted to prohibit all vicious activities? The goal of human law is the temporal tranquility of the state and not eternal salvation. Given this goal of temporal peace and order, Aquinas notes that the mandate of human law is to prohibit “whatever destroys social intercourse” and not to “prohibit everything contrary to virtue.” The main reason for civil law’s inability to prohibit all vice is that it cannot effect a full internal reform of an individual. An individual in their personal moral life is wounded by original sin and can only be restored by God’s grace. Therefore the coercive and educating power of human law is inefficacious in this realm. Aquinas asserts, then, that human law cannot “exact perfect virtue from man, for such virtue belongs to few and cannot be found in so great a number of people as human law has to direct.

Any reading of Aquinas’ works on politics makes it quite clear that “civil government,” for there was no “state” as we know it in the 13th century, does not exist to reform people’s minds or to increase their virtue, or to protect them from themselves.

There has never been a Catholic “Sharia Law”. That is why our doctrine has been able to accommodate “moderate” state secularism, whereas the Islamic world hasn’t.

 

[Jeanne_S]

If you recall you jumped all over another poster for what you assumed was his opinion when he mentioned punish end by a baby.I merely brought to your attention that those were Obama’s words .if you had actually bothered to read his post within the context that he wrote it,you would have picked up on this fact.

 

[exnihilo]

What I said was in agreement with Aquinas. Just because something is immoral doesn’t mean we should make a law against it.

But what is most interesting to me is western governments have more laws covering more intimate details of human activity than any governments in history. For instance I can’t get the kind of lightbulb I want because there are laws against the manufacture of them. That has nothing to do with temporal tranquility but in imposing the moral value of energy saving.

If we give up on abortion laws because it is imposing morality we aren’t stopping the imposition of moral laws. We are excluding very important morals from being illegal and allowing the most trivial moral matters to be illegal, often with great temporal punishment. For many instance animals and their offspring have more protection than human babies. That sends a message and instructs people. The message is human life isn’t as important as animal or even plant life.

 

[ATraveller]

Sure. The problem is that when people say things like, “if you really care about unborn children you have to support the mother and child for the rest of their lives” is that the people saying this don’t actually care about that particular argument and they don’t care about the mother or the child, beyond the belief that a woman should not be “punished” with a pregnancy and should be free from any responsibility. They just want any excuse to have legal abortions and will use anything to justify it. “Caring for the mother and child” is just a moving goalpost.

Exactly. Ireland has a generous welfare state. So the idea that there’s no support from either government or private sources is absurd in the Irish context.
This referendum was about abortion on demand. Not rape or the rare exceptions.